Chuman Manjhi v. The State Of Bihar

Having heard counsel, learned counsel for the parties in respect of the following relief:- "For a direction respondents regularisation of the service of the petitioners on Class- IV post who are working on daily wages since last more than twenty years in different departments/offices of the District Establishment in Bihar Government. For a direction to the respondents to place the petitioners according to their actual previous day of work done in the Government Departments in the Panel list prepared for appointment on Class-IV posts in Bettiah District. " and having regard to the admitted fact emerging from the supplementary affidavit it becomes clear that save and except petitioner no.1 and 11 no one even after being given the claimed experience of number of man-days could have qualified for appointment on Group-D posts of peon in their respective category, this Court must hold the case of petitioners no. 2 to 10 Patna High Court CWJC No.15189 of 2012 (3) dt.25-02-2013 3 and 12 to 22 to be wholly misconceived as would be also apparent from the following statement in paragraphs no. 4 to 7 of the aforesaid supplementary affidavit:- "4. That it is further stated that the cut off position in different category of appointed persons from the said panel are as follows:- Category Panel Sl. No. Days of experience (A) General - 67 1029 (B) S.C. - 108 491 (C) S.T. - 309 Nil (D) E.B.C. - 208 81 (E) B.C. - 104 563

That it is humbly stated that the actual work experience days of the petitioners have not been considered which would give them higher position in the said panel a comparative list is being shown hereunder:- Petitioner Category Panel serial Previous expenses days not considered total days New position in Days considered Panel after considering actual days 1. S.C. 119 442 50 492 108

B.C. 150 240 103 343 126

B.C. 186 133 52 185 168

E.B.C. 267 6 35 41 227

5. S.C. 182 145 137 282 144

B.C. 259 10 76 86 206

E.B.C. 227 39 22 61 218

E.B.C. 236 26 32 58 221

S.C. 181 146 105 251 147

B.C. 214 67 118 185 169

E.B.C. 212 69 43 112 197

S.C. 263 8 6 14 251

B.C. 271 4 35 39 230

S.C. 260 10 72 82 207

B.C. 248 17 35 52 222

B.C. 229 36 19 55 211

B.C. 180 148 22 170 178

S.C. 205 93 35 128 190

B.C. 211 70 32 102 199

S.C. 302 0 28 28 236

S.C. 231 29 13 42 227 Patna High Court CWJC No.15189 of 2012 (3) dt.25-02-2013 4

6. That it is humbly submitted that after consideration of actual working days(492 days) the petitioner no. 1 would get the position of last appointed person in the S.C. category having 491 days experience at serial no. 108 in the panel.

7. That the petitioner no. 11 having 112 days of actual work experience would get position at serial no. 197 in the panel which is above the last appointed person in the E.B.C. category who is at serial no. 208 having 81 days work experience. " It has to be kept in mind that the panel was drawn in the month of November, 2011 and the life of the panel has already come to an end after completion of a period of one year none of the person has been appointed who has got lesser working days by the experience than petitioners no. 2 to 10 and 12 to 22 in their respective category and therefore, their grievance as with regard to being not appointed must be held to be wholly misconceived. The plea that 45 vacancies have remained unfilled will again be of no benefit to the petitioner nos. 2 to 10 and 12 to 22, inasmuch as now after expiry of life of the panel this Court would not like those vacancies to be filled up from the panel whose life has already come to an end especially when this writ application was filed on 22.8.2012.

The case of petitioner no.1 and 11 however, would Patna High Court CWJC No.15189 of 2012 (3) dt.25-02-2013 5 require consideration from the angle that the last candidate, who has been appointed in Scheduled Caste category and Economically Backward had only 491 days and 81 days respectively whereas if the petitioner no. 1 who has been given experience of 442 days, if he could have been given the desired experience of 50 days as claimed by him vide Annexures 7 and 8 to the reply to the counter affidavit, his case with 492 days of experience for appointment on Class IV post could have been better than the last person with 491 days of experience appointed in his category i.e. Scheduled Caste. Similarly in case of petitioner no. 11 as he had been given credit for experience only for 69 days had he been given also experience for 43 days, he on the basis of 112 days could have been appointed inasmuch his category of E.B.C. the last candidates with 81 days experience has been appointed.

In that view of the matter, this Court would give liberty only to petitioner no.1 and 11 to agitate his case for his appointment on the basis of certificates relied by them and if the petitioner no.1 and 11 would file their separate representation for reconsideration of their case before the Collector of the District he would look into the aforesaid aspect and if he finds that the experience of 50 and 43 days claimed by the petitioner no. 1 and 11 on the basis of experience certificates has been followed by Patna High Court CWJC No.15189 of 2012 (3) dt.25-02-2013 6 payment of wages and yet not taken into account he would definitely reconsider the case of the petitioner no. 1 and 11 in the category of Scheduled Caste and E.B.C. respectively and would either remove the last person who having less working days experience in the respective categories has been appointed in preference to the petitioners no.