SHEO NATH PRASAD Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Sheo Nath Prasad, has challenged the validity of the order of the Government dated the 8th may, 1967 (Annexure 'V'), which is to the following effect:

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the application contended that the petitioner held the post of Draftsman, Grade I, as a direct recruit for more than two and a half years and that he was also confirmed to the post after his performance was found satisfactory. He held no lien on his previous post inasmuch as he was given the starting salary of a Draftsman, Grade I, and also increment. His demotion and reduction in rank had been made without any cause of legal basis superseding all canons of justice. It was urged that due to demotion and reduction in rank the petitioner would suffer a huge financial damage, great mental torture and unwarranted humiliation without any fault on his part.

(3.) The impugned order has been sought to be justified on behalf of the State of Bihar (respondent no. 1) on the ground that it was issued validly as there had been a mistake in the appointment of the petitioner. In the counter -affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Bihar, it is stated that the order of appointment of the petitioner to the post of the Draftsman, Grade I, was temporary inasmuch as the post of Draftsman, Grade I, itself was a temporary post and the petitioner was also thus a temporary employee. It is denied that the petitioner has been demoted or that his rank has been reduced. Further, the petitioner was not entitled to any show cause as the impugned order had been passed not by way of punishment or as a result of any enquiry against him. The petitioner was a temporary Draftsman, Grade II, and therefore, he had no right to hold the post of Draftsman, Grade I, which was itself a temporary post. In Paragraph 5 of the counter -affidavit, it is stated that while filling up the post of Draftsman, Grade I, after the creation of the Patna Circle in 1964, although nominations were called for, but the name of Sri Jamuna Prasad (respondent no. 3) was not sent, and, so he represented his case before the Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Bihar, against the injustice done to him. Sri Jamuna Prasad claimed that he was a permanent Draftsman, Grade II, having an experience of eleven years, whereas the petitioner, on the other hand, was a temporary Draftsman, Grade II, junior to him. The Chief Engineer called for a report from the Superintending Engineer and examined the relevant facts and placed the whole matter before the Government in Irrigation Department with his recommendations. Since Sri Jamuna Prasad was ignored and the petitioner was a temporary servant working on a temporary post, so no illegality was committed by passing the impugned order to rectify the mistake.