- (1.) PETITIONERS are working as Employment Officer. They have approached this Court challenging the transfer/promotion of Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 vide notification dated 31st December, 2003 to the post of Assistant Director (Employment). It is alleged that private respondent are junior to the petitioners, but have been placed at higher position ignoring the claim of the petitioners. While referring to the seniority position in the tentative seniority list issued vide circular dated 6th July, 1996. it is revealed that petitioners are at SI. Nos. 34 and 37, respectively, of the seniority list, whereas private respondents are at SI. Nos. 25, 29 and 31 respectively. This seniority list has been finalized. Therefore, claim of the petitioners that the private respondents are junior to them is contrary to record. Other grievance of the petitioners is that petitioners are required to work under the respondents. There is a vague averment in Para -26 of the writ petition and no specific positions held by the private respondents and petitioners have been indicated.
(2.) THE stand of the State respondents is that private respondents were made In -charge Assistant Directors (Employment) by the unified State of Bihar on 30th December, 1995 in the basic pay scale of Employment Officer at Rs. 6500 -10500 and the Successor State of Jharkhand has only transferred them on same position. From the reply, it is evident that the private respondents are working as In -charge Assistant Director (Employment) since December, 1995. Nothing has been brought on record, whether the post of Assistant Director (Employment) is selection post or to be filled up on the basis of seniority alone. Whatever may be the position ad hoc promotions are bad in law. If it is a selection post, then all eligible persons, within the zone of consideration have right of consideration for such promotion on the basis of their service record. Allowing the private respondents to hold the post of In -charge Assistant Director (Employment) for more than ten years is impermissible in law.
(3.) IN view of the above circumstances, I dispose of this petition with a direction to the Respondent -State to fill up the post held by Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 on substantive basis in accordance with rules providing consideration to the eligible candidates including petitioners within a period of four months, if they fall within the zone of consideration and/or otherwise eligible. If the substantive appointments are not made within the time stipulated hereinabove, private respondents and/or any other person holding the higher post on ad hoc/incharge basis shall cease to hold the post.;