YOGENDRA PRASAD SINGH v. The State of Bihar & Ors.

Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha for the petitioner, Mr. Ritesh Kumar, learned junior counsel to Additional Advocate Generala No.1, and Mr. B.K. Singh Chouhan for respondent nos.2 to 10 (The Bihar State Agricultural Marketing 2 Board and others). This writ petition has been preferred for a direction to set aside the order dated 13.6.2000 (Annexure-13), passed by the then Managing Director of the respondent- Board in Revision Petition No.1 of 1999 (Yogendra Prasad singh, Record-Keeper Vs. Bihar State Agricultural Marketing Board), whereby the petitioner’s representation has been rejected, and his reversion from the post of Market Supervisor to that of record-keeper has been upheld.

#2. A brief resume of facts may be indicated. According to the writ petition, the petitioner was appointed on daily-wages as a Market Supervisor by the Market Committee, Jay Nagar, vide order dated 15.10.1974 (Annexure-1). He joined on 16.10.1974, and continued as such till 9.8.1976. The Board issued a general order on 27.7.1976 (Annexure-2), directing all the Bazar Samities to stop making appointment on daily-wages and further directed them to regularise the services of daily-wage employees. Consequently, the petitioner was regularised in the services of the Board as a Market Supervisor by order dated 10.8.1976(Annexure-3). By a policy decision of 11.6.1977 (Annexure-4 3 series), issued under the signature of then Chairman Board, Graduation determined minimum educational qualification for the post of Market Supervisor. The petitioner being a Matriculate, he was reverted to the post of record-keeper by order dated 5.10.1978 (Annexure-5), and he was relieved to join as record-keeper at the Bazar Simiti, Muzaffarpur. The petitioner challenged the same by preferring C.W.J.C. No.6296 of 1997, which was permitted to be withdrawn with the liberty to pursue his cause before the Board by

9.11.1998 (Annexure-9). The petitioner’s representation was allowed by order dated 19.5.1999 (Annexure-10), whereby the petitioner was restored to his position of Market Supervisor. It appears that the petitioner had also sent reminders to his representation which was registered as a separate case bearing aforesaid Revision Petition No.1 of 1999, which has been disposed of by the impugned order dated 13.6.2000 (Annexure-13), whereby the said order dated

19.5.1999 (Annexure-10) was recalled, the representation of the petitioner has been rejected, and his reversion to the post of 4 record-keeper has been upheld. Hence this writ petition.

#3. While assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no cause of action for passing the later order dated

13.6.2000 (Annexure-13), once the petitioner’s representation has been disposed of by the previous order dated 19.5.1999 (Annexure-10). He also submits that the petitioner had not filed appeal which could have enabled the Managing Director to pass the impugned order. He further submits that the later order could not have been passed by the same authority, both the orders having been passed by the Managing Director. He lastly submits that persons with qualifications of Matriculation or I.A. have been allowed to continue, and the petitioner has been subjected to hostile discrimination. He relies on the final gradation-list promulgated by the Board’s communication dated 15.5.2000 (Annexure-6).

#4. The two sets of respondents in their separate submissions have opposed the writ petition. 5

#5. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The admitted position is that he was so appointed on daily- wage as a Market Supervisor. There is no material on record to suggest that it was in pursuance of an advertisement. The petitioner claims to have been regularised in the services of the Marketing Board as Market Supervisor by order dated 10.8.1976 (Annexure-3). The Board thereafter had issued a policy decision on

11.6.1977 (Annexure-4 series), fixing the minimum educational qualification for different posts and graduation was fixed as the minimum educational qualification for Market Supervisor. The petitioner was a Matriculate and was, therefore, reverted to the post of record- keeper by order dated 22.10.1978 (Annexure-5 series). He was relieved to join as record- keeper at the Bazar Samiti, Muzaffarpur. The petitioner challenged the same by preferring C.W.J.C. No.6296 of 1997 (Yogendra Prasad Singh Vs. The State of Bihar & ors.), which was permitted to be withdrawn by order dated

9.11.1998 (Annexure-9) with the liberty to the petitioner to pursue his claim before the Board. 6 The petitioner’s representation was allowed by order dated 19.5.1999 (Annexure-10), passed by Managing Director. The petitioner’s representation was once again registered as a fresh case bearing Revision Petition No.1 of 1999, which was rejected by order dated

13.6.2000 (Annexure-13), the said order dated

19.5.1999 (Annexure-10) was recalled, and the petitioner’s reversion to the post of record- keeper has been upheld.

#6. The petitioner has strongly relied on the gradation list of Market Supervisor which, in his submission, shows that a number of Market Supervisors with the qualification of Matriculation have been allowed to continue as such. This aspect of the matter needs serious consideration and I would have disposed of the same on merits. However, I refrain from doing so because of the provisions of the Bihar Agriculture Produce Market (Repeal) Act 2006. In view of the provisions of section 3 of the said Act, the Bihar Agriculture Produce Market Act, 1960 has been repealed, and absorption of officers employees quondam Board/Market Committee/Bazar Samiti have been left open to be decided by a committee of the 7 Government Functionaries in terms of section 6 of the Act. In that view of the matter, let the Committee consider the petitioner’s case also and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law.

#7. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of. S.K.Pathak/ (S K Katriar, J.)