Letters Patent Appeal No. 563 of 2013 · Patna High Court
Case Details
Patna High Court LPA No.563 of 2013 (4) dt.24-10-2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.563 of 2013 ====================================================== 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna 2. The Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna 3. The Secretary, Labour Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna 4. The Principal Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Bihar, Patna .... .... Appellant/s Versus 1. Padma Nanda Kumar Son Of Late Vidya Nand Yadav Residing At Usha Niwas, Ashok Nagar, Road No. 8f, P.S.- Kankarbagh, District- Patna 2. Sunil Kumar Son Of Shri Shyam Nandan Singh Residing At A-3 Sumitam Grihan Vatika, Ambedkar Path, Khajpura, P.S.- Shastri Nagar, District- Patna 3. Jitendra Kumar Son Of Late R.L. Chouhan Residing At 305a, Girija Garden, New Punaichak, P.S.- Shastri Nagar, District- Patna 4. Fariyad Miya Son Of Halim Miya Residing At Nizam House, Haroon Nagar, Sector- 2, P.S.- Phulwarisharif, District- Patna 5. Ramayan Ram Son Of Late Suki Ram Presently Residing At Gayatri Nagar, Rukanpura, P.S.- Rupaspur, District- Patna 6. The Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Bihar, Patna 7. The Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, Bihar, Patna 8. The Joint Secretary-Cum-Officer On Special Duty-Cum-Examination Controller, Bihar Public Service Commission, Bihar, Patna .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi, AAG-XIV Mr. Vishwajeet Singh, AC to AAG-XIV For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sanjay Pandey Mr. Birendra Kant Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Sanat Kumar Mishra. Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILESH KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA) 4 24-10-2013 I.A. No. 3339 of 2013 has been filed to condone delay of approximately 69 days in filing of the Appeal. We have heard counsel for the parties and are satisfied to allow the I.A.
Legal Reasoning
Patna High Court LPA No.563 of 2013 (4) dt.24-10-2013 application and take up the Appeal for consideration on merits. The present Appeal arises from order dated 02.01.2013 allowing C.W.J.C. No. 15751 of 2012. The learned Single Judge held that the allocation of service of the respondents was to the State of Jharkhand consequent to the reorganization of the State of Bihar was provisional. If, according to procedures, after considering objections final allocation had been made to the State of Bihar, the respondents having been initially appointed in the undivided State of Bihar on 11.12.1995, they fulfilled the condition of eligibility for 5 years of service in the Assistant Grade and were eligible to appear at the Limited Competitive Examination for the post of Section Officer. Learned Additional Advocate General-XIV submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed an error of record. The foundation of the order is a finding of provisional allocation of the respondents to the State of Jharkhand and final allocation to the State of Bihar. The fact is that the respondents in and around 14.11.2000-24.11.2000 had been finally allocated the State of Jharkhand. They became members of the Jharkhand cadre from the date of their joining. Subsequently, the respondents represented for being transferred back to the Bihar cadre which came to be allowed on 06.09.2010. The cut-off date for meeting Patna High Court LPA No.563 of 2013 (4) dt.24-10-2013 the eligibility criteria of 5 years to sit in the examination was 11.06.2010. Clearly, the respondents did not fulfill this eligibility requirement. Counsel for the Bihar Public Service Commission has adopted the arguments on behalf of the Appellants. Counsel for the private respondents supported the order under Appeal contending that it required no interference which in any event only permits them to appear in the Limited Competitive Examination. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties. The re-organization of the State of Bihar was a historic event and as noticed in (2007) 7 SCC 250 (Indradeo Paswan vs. Union of India) gave rise to its own peculiar problems given the largeness of the exercise. An Advisory Committee was created. Various guidelines and criterias were laid down to consider allocation of cadres. Provision to submit grievances in wake of the difficulties for the employees if the principles laid down for cadre allocation were strictly adhered was also provided. It is not in controversy that several representations came to be allowed also. The exercise neared completion in or about 2010 finally. We have noticed these facts because in our opinion, they have great relevance for the conclusion that we propose to arrive at affirming Patna High Court LPA No.563 of 2013 (4) dt.24-10-2013 the order under Appeal but for slightly different reasons. The private respondents were appointed as Assistant on 11.12.1995. Normally speaking in mid December 2000 they would have fulfilled the eligibility criteria of 5 years and the cut-off date of 11.06.2010 would not have posed any difficulty for them. Approximately 15-20 days before completion of 5 years they were allocated the State of Jharkhand. The Appellants were themselves conscious of the difficulties that would arise in the wake of transfer of services consequent to the re-organisation and the scheme itself provided for entertaining requests/objections to cadre allocation. The private respondents represented in accordance with procedures and the Appellants found merit in the representations. They were then brought back to the State of Bihar on 06.09.2010. In our opinion, in the peculiar facts of the case, the private respondents, even according to the Appellants fall short of the eligibility requirement by approximately 15 to 20 days only. The period, taking a holistic view of the matter is insignificant. To deny them the right to appear at the Limited Competitive Examination by literal interpretation would cause injustice. The observation “literal interpretation”, is also best answered by the fact that no sooner that the private Patna High Court LPA No.563 of 2013 (4) dt.24-10-2013 respondents came back to the State of Bihar under a procedure provided for by the Appellants themselves there shall have to be a continuity. Even otherwise equitable considerations shall apply and be invoked by us. This observation is restricted for the purposes of eligibility criteria to appear at the Examination and other issues if any are left open. In the result, we find no reason to interfere with the order under Appeal.
Decision
The Appeal is dismissed. (Navin Sinha, J) Md. Ibrarul/- (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J)