- (1.) BY Court Heard learned counsel for the parties. The order impugned is dated 14th December,1999, by which posting of the petitioner as Health Educator, has been cancelled after 13 years and he has been redesignated as NonMedical Assistant, the said order has been issued by the Director, Health Services, respondent no. 2.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Non Medical Assistant in the pay scale of Rs. 680965/ vide order dated 27th August, 1982 (Annexure1), it was revised in the year 1987 to the scale of Rs. 7301080/. It is his case that the pay scale of NonMedical Assistant and the Health Educator were same at the relevant point of time as per Annexure2 dated 27th July, 1987, hence, the petitioner was allowed to change his cadre from NonMedical Assistant to the post of Health Educator by the impugned order. However, after 13 years almost he has been again reverted to the post of NonMedical Assistant, which is illegal and arbitrary. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment rendered by a Single Bench of the Patna High Court in the case of Rajeshwar Prasad GopeVs.State of Bihar and others in CWJC. No. 828/96 ( R) delivered on 20th May, 1996 as also the judgment of the Patna High court in CWJC No. 147 of 1996( R) delivered on 23rd July, 1996. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits by relying upon the aforesaid judgments that the orders of cancellation of promotion of the concerned persons from the posts of enumerator and computer respectively, were set aside by the Patna High Court in the aforesaid two judgments as the same were done after a considerable length of time and the fact that the persons had held the promotional post upon the orders of promotion validly issued. The RespondentsState has appeared and filed their counter affidavit. Their categorical stand as stated in paragraph no. 9 of the counter affidavit is that pay scale of NonMedical Assistant was Rs. 680965/ whereas pay scale of Health Educator was Rs. 7301080/, it was subsequently revised to Rs. 7301080 for Non Medical Assistant while that of Health Educator as 7851210/ vide resolution dated 15th January 1987. Further revision of respective posts were in the scale of Rs. 14002300/ and Rs. 14002600/ respectively. The newly revised pay scale of NonMedical Assistant was Rs. 40006000/ whereas the pay scale of Health Educator was Rs. 50008000/ vide resolution dated 8th February, 1999. Accordingly, the petitioner was not in the same pay scale of Health Educator. The second ground for contesting the petitioner's claim is based upon the assertion that the post of Non Medical Assistant is a District Cadre post while the post of Health Educator is a State Level Post. The Civil Surgeon cumChief Medical Officer, who had allowed to change the cadre of the petitioner earlier, was not the competent authority to do so. Therefore, the post of Health Educator being State Cadre Post, the petitioner was given opportunity to show cause before his posting as Health Educator has been cancelled and he was made to function as a NonMedical Assistant.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. It is apparent from the aforesaid facts, which have borne on record andthe pleadings that the scale of NonMedical Assistant was not equivalent to that of Health Educator at the relevant point of time when the petitioner was permitted to join the post of Health Educator by the respondent no.3, Civil SurgeoncumChief Medical Officer, Hazaribagh and under subsequent revision. Even otherwise the post of Health Educator was a State Cadre post, in respect of which a decision for conversion would have been taken at the State Level by the respondent no.2 or any other competent authority and not by Civil Surgeon of the concerned district. The judgments relied upon by the petitioner do not relate to a factual situation where the promoted post was belonging to a different State Cadre, as in the present case. The promotion of the said persons were cancelled by the respondents authorities after considerable lapse of time since the persons concerned had worked on the promotional post on the basis of a valid promotional order. Accordingly, these judgments relied upon by the petitioner, do not apply in the present case.;