SANJAYKUMARSINHA-LL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by one Sanjay Kumar Sinha-II and 19 other direct recruits to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests (hereinafter referred to as the A.C.F.) in the Bihar Forest Service under the Bihar Forest Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Service) with a prayer to quash that portion of gradation list of the Members of the said service, whereby they have been shown Junior to the Private Respondents Nos. 4 to 46. The petitioners have also prayed for a direction upon the respondents to grant their due place in the gradation list in accordance with law.

(2.) The factual aspect of the case which is relevant for the purpose of deciding the aforesaid claim of the petitioners are as follows : On the basis of an advertisement dated 24th July, 1985 issued by the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the said Commission) for 40 permanent posts of A.C.F. which were to be filled up by direct recruitment, the petitioners applied as they satisfied their eligibility criteria. Thereafter the petitioners were called for written test oh 19th December, 1985 and also on subsequent dates. Their case is that as they qualified in the said written test, the petitioners along with various other candidates, i.e. 126 in numbers, were asked to appear in viva-voce on different dates between 13th April, 1987 and 15th April, 1987. Thereafter on 19th April, 1987 a final list of the successful candidates was published in which the name of the petitioners were also mentioned. Thereafter the petitioners had to undergo a medical tests and according to the assertion in the writ petition the medical report was received by the respondent Stale in the end of May, 1987. The petitioners' case is that in so far as their appointments are concerned, the entire process was completed in the month of May, 1987 but instead of actually issuing their orders of appointment, the State authorities, according to the petitioners, under the influence of a section of the Range Officers, delayed the issuance of notification of appointment and on the other hand proceeded to consider the cases of Range Officers for promotion to the post of A.C.F. The petitioners assert that for the said purpose a meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as the D.P.C.) was called on 20th June, 1987 for consideration of the cases of the Range Officers (Respondent Nos. 4, 6 to 20, 35 to 37, 39 to 41 and 45) for promotion to the posts of A.C.F., and the D.P.C. recommended the case of those respondents who were called for promotion and sent a report to the Commission who, in its turn, within a report to the Commission who, in its turn, within a period of 12 days, on 2nd July, 1987 made its recommendation to the State Government for promotion of those respondents and necessary notifications for promotion in respect to those respondents were brought out on 4th October, 1987, And the said order of promotion in respect to the aforesaid respondents were made effective from the date the D.P.C. had made its recommendation for promotion, i.e. with effect from 20th June, 1987.

(3.) The further grievance of the petitioners is that again on 17th October, 1987 the D.P.C. held another meeting recommending the promotion of Respondent Nos. 5, 21 to 34, 38, 42, 43, 44 and 46 to the post of A.C.F. in the said Service. The recommendation in their favour for promotion was sent to the Commission which in its turn made its recommendation on 27th October, 1987 and finally on 23rd November, 1987 necessary notifications promoting the aforesaid respondents were made and the said promotions to the post of A.C.F. was made effective from 17th October, 1987.