- (1.) This application has been filed for quashing of the order as contained in Memo No. 501 (S) dated 06.02.2010 (Annexure-5), passed by the Respondent No. 4 the Deputy Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, by which Assured Career Progression (hereinafter referred to as "A.C.P.") granted to the Petitioner w.e.f. 09.08.1999 was cancelled, by holding that the Petitioner is not entitled to 1st A.C.P. w.e.f. 09.08.1999 rather he is entitled to 1st A.C.P. w.e.f. 02.08.2003. At the same time, order as contained in Memo No. 1486 (S) dated 20.03.2010 (Annexure-7), under which the aforesaid order was confirmed has also been sought to be quashed.
(2.) It is the case of the Petitioner that pursuant to the Advertisement issued by the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as "B.P.S.C"), the Petitioner applied for the appointment on the post of Assistant Engineer. On being interviewed, the Petitioner came out successful wherein out of 600 candidates, he was shown at serial No. 514 in the panel. Accordingly, the B.P.S.C. made recommendation for His appointment, but the Petitioner was never offered appointment whereas one Sharad Kumar securing only 41 marks/points was appointed, though the Petitioner had secured 45 marks/points and, therefore, the Petitioner made representation on 21.06.1988 but no reply was given to the Petitioner., However, the same list was revised after two years wherein in case of the Petitioner, it was recorded that he was given wrongly 12 marks/points for his B. Tech degree instead of 7 marks/points on that count and thereby, the Petitioner's mark/point was reduced from 45 to 40. Similarly, marks of one Sharad Kumar was reduced from 41 to 36. All these discrepancies occurred due to conversion of cumulative grade point average into percentage of marks allotted to the Petitioner and other candidates, who had obtained degree from IIT, Delhi, but that had wrongly been applied in case of the Petitioner, as the Petitioner had obtained 6.5 marks/points out of total 10 points and if the same is converted into the percentage, the Petitioner would be entitled to 65.10 marks/points.
(3.) Under these circumstances, the matter was challenged before the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 9184 of 1988, which was disposed of on 10.04.1990 in the following terms: 14. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties at length, we are disposing of this petition with a direction to the Commission to reconsider the case of the Petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order in the light of the reports submitted by the Committee of Experts, constituted by this Court. If after reassessment, it is found that the Petitioner is fit to be appointed, steps should be taken by the Commission to recommend his name to the State Government for appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer. As mentioned above, Respondent No. 6 who was allotted less point/marks than the Petitioner was appointed sometime in the year 1988. It will be too harsh if he is thrown out of employment after lapse of about two years. We think that it will not be difficult for the State Government to accommodate the Petitioner and appoint him on the post of Assistant Engineer, if his name is recommended by the Commission after reassessing his position in the merit list without disturbing Respondent No. 6. The State Respondent is directed to pass necessary orders in regard to the appointment of the Petitioner on the post of Assistant Engineer within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the recommendation of the Commission. It is stated on behalf of the Petitioner that after reexamination of his case in the light of the opinion given by the Committee of Experts, he has every chance of being Appointed as an Assistant Engineer in the State of Bihar. Submission has been made that after his appointment, he should not be made to suffer for no fault of his own and his name in the seniority list should be placed above the names of the candidates who are ultimately found to have obtained less marks/points after reconsideration. An undertaking has been given on behalf of the Petitioner that he will not claim arrears pf pay and other emoluments for the period prior to his actual appointment during which he did not work even after his proper placement in the seniority list. In our view, the stand taken on behalf of the Petitioner is fair. In case, he is found fit for appointment after reassessment of his points/marks, he must be given proper place in the seniority list. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ application is disposed off in limine.;