ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. Mithilesh Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Mr. Atanu Baneijee, learned G.A., appearing for the State. A supplementary counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 3 before this Court today itself. Let it be kept on record.
(2.) This spirit application has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: (i) for quashing the letter No. 3717 dated 1.9.2006 (Annexure-13), by which seniority and grant of annual increment has been given to the petitioner from the date of passing the departmental examination, (ii) for commanding the respondents to grant seniority to the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment and further to give effect to the order dated 1.9.2006, (iii) for commanding the respondents to grant ACP to the petitioner on completion of 12 years of service as counted from the date of substantive appointment on the post of Typist and (iv) other incidental reliefs.
(3.) The brief facts, involved in this case, are that in response to the advertisement for appointment on sanctioned post of Typist in the office of the respondent No. 5-Chief Engineer, Swam Rekha Multipurpose Project, Chandil, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, being an allied office of the Secretariat, the petitioner was appointed on the sanctioned post of Typist against a post carrying the pay scale of Secretariat cadre post on 20.9.1985. The petitioner passed Hindi Noting and Drafting examination within six months from his appointment. The Water Resources Department confirmed the service of the petitioner as Secretariat cadre Typist on fulfilling two conditions; (i) the petitioner will have to pass examination of typing conducted by the Bihar State Subordinate Service Selection Board; and (ii) after passing of the typing examination, the petitioner will have to pass departmental examination and only thereafter the petitioner can get position in the seniority of typist of Secretariat cadre. It is also averred in the writ application that though the respondent No. 5 was vested with the power of confirmation the petitioner's service but he sent the matter for confirmation to the department and the department illegally and without jurisdiction imposed two conditions for confirmation of the petitioner's service.;