SHREE RAM SARANGAT SINHA AND 16 OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND 88 OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In both these writ petitions common questions of fact and law arise and these two cases were also made analogous. This judgment will, therefore, govern both these cases. The petitioners in these writ petitions were appointed as Munsifs on the 4th of February, 1958. Respondent no. 1 is the State of Bihar and respondent no. 2 is the High Court, Patna. Respondent nos. 3 to 89 were appointed as temporary Munsifs in the years 1952 and 1955 respectively. The petitioners in both these cases have obtained a Rule from this Court against the respondents calling upon them to show cause as to why the petitioners should not be declared senior to respondent nos. 3 to 89 and the promotions of the respondents as Sub judges be also not declared as unconstitutional, ultra vires, void and illegal and also as to why a writ in the nature of certiorari be not issued quashing the seniority as shown in the Working Civil List. In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 552 of 1969 also similar relief has been claimed except that one additional relief in that petition, viz. relief, no. (b) that a writ in the nature of writ of certiorari be issued quashing the Notifications (Annexures '2' to '4') in so far as they purport to be retrospective. At the time of the commencement of the hearing Mr. Basudeva Prasad appearing for the petitioners submitted that he will be advancing arguments only in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 847 of 1969 and the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents also addressed us with regard to the writ petition 847 only. At the conclusion of the hearing it was also submitted by Mr. Basudeva Prasad that the petitioners are not pressing relief no. (b) in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 552 of 1969 and that the arguments as advanced in respect of 847 are also adopted as arguments in C.W.J.C. No. 552. The learned counsel for the respondents also adopted the same arguments as advanced in C.W.J.C. No. 847. An order to this effect has also been recorded in C.W.J.C. No. 552. I will be, therefore, dealing with the facts as submitted in the petition and the counter -affidavits and also as urged by the learned counsel for the parties in course of the arguments in respect of C.W.J.C. No. 847 of 1959.

(2.) The facts which are not disputed and which can be stated briefly in chronological order are as follows:

(3.) The contention of the petitioners briefly is to the effect that all these appointments, that is of the petitioners and the respondents would be controlled and governed by the Bihar Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1955 and the appointments of the respondents have not been in accordance with those rules. It has been urged that at the time when the petitioners were appointed as probationary Munsifs, all those permanent posts of Munsifs, which were sanctioned in the year 1956 had remained vacant and the petitioners were the first group of officers to be appointed as probationers against those substantive vacancies by respondent no. 1 in consultation with respondent no. 2 and the appointment of the respondents by Notification dated the 29th of April, 1958 with effect from 1.3.1956 was illegal and contrary to the specific provisions of the Rules. Similarly the Notifications with regard to the other respondents putting them on probation with retrospective dates as well as the confirmation of the respondents with retrospective dates are illegal and without jurisdiction. It has also been submitted that some of the respondents whose names have been mentioned in the petition had not been found at one stage fit to be confirmed and, therefore, they could not have been confirmed according to the rules specially after giving retrospective effect to the date of confirmation. It has also been submitted in the petition that the orders appointing the respondents on probation were in respect of vacancies which had not been declared by the Governor of Bihar as contemplated by Rule 3 of the aforesaid Rules. It has also been urged that representation had been filed by the petitioners to the High Court in the year 1968, but when the representations were rejected on 12.4.1969, then the petitioners filed these present petitions. An explanation has thus been given about the late filing of the petitions.