Patna High Court
The State Of Bihar & Ors vs Radha Bihari Ojha & Ors on 3 February, 2015
Author: Navaniti Prasad Singh
Bench: Navaniti Prasad Singh, Jitendra Mohan Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12540 of 2012
===========================================================
1. The State Of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna
2. The Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reform (Now
known as General Administrative Department), Bihar, Patna
.... .... Petitioners
Versus
1. Radha Bihari Ojha son of Late Pandit Sheo Narayan Ojha, resident of village
and Post Office - Semaria Ojhapatti, P.S - Sahpurpatti, District - Bhojpur
..... Respondent Ist set.
2. The Union Of India through the Secretary, Government Of India, Ministry of
Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, Department of Personnel and
Training, New Delhi
3. The Deputy Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public
Grievances and Pension, Department of Personnel and Training, New Delhi
4. The Chairman, Union Public Service Commission, Dholpur House, Shahjahan
Road, New Delhi
5. Sri Arvind Kumar Singh, the then posted as the Special Secretary, General
Administrative Department, Bihar.
.... .... Respondents 2nd set.
===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioners : Mr. Gautam Bose, Sr. Advocate, AAG. 8 and
Mr. Sanghamitra Ghosh, Advocate, A.C. to AAG 8.
For the UPSC : Mr. Kaushal Kumar Jha, Advocate.
For Respondent no.1 : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ojha, Advocate.
For U.O.I. : Mr. Alok Kumar Jha, Advocate, C.G.C.
For Respondent No.5: Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, Advocate and
Mr. Sanjeet Kumar Singh, Advocate.
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH)
Date: 03-02-2015
Heard learned counsel for the State, learned counsel for
the Union Public Service Commission, learned counsel for private
respondent no.1, who was the petitioner before the Central
Administrative Tribunal (for short `the Tribunal') and learned counsel
Patna High Court CWJC No.12540 of 2012 dt.03-02-2015
Page 3
for other respondents and with their consent this writ petition is being
disposed of at this stage itself.
2. The contention of respondent no.1 Radha Behari Ojha
before the Tribunal was that he was within the consideration zone for
being considered for appointment by way of promotion to the cadre of
Indian Administrative Service from Bihar Administrative Service. His
contention before the Tribunal was that there were certain
uncommunicated adverse entries in his ACR, which had been taken
into account by the Selection Committee and as such the decision not
to recommend him for such consideration is vitiated. The Tribunal,
noticing the regulation, which specifically provides that
uncommunicated adverse entries in the ACR cannot be used, made
out a case that the ACR of the petitioner before it had been wrongly
considered. It, accordingly, directed the State to reconsider the entire
matter in relation to the petitioner before it i.e. respondent no.1 before
us. State being aggrieved has filed the present writ petition,
challenging the decision of the Tribunal and has brought on record the
entire deliberations of the Selection Committee dated 23.12.2001 and
13.04.2006, to show that the Selection Committee had clearly noticed that uncommunicated adverse entries in the ACR were not being taken into account.
3. From the proceeding of the subsequent meeting, it has Patna High Court CWJC No.12540 of 2012 dt.03-02-2015 Page 3 been shown that there being only 18 vacancies, there were more than 18 persons, whose over all assessment was `Very Good', whereas, the assessment of respondent no.1 before us was only `Good'. Thus, automatically respondent no.1 was beyond the spectrum of selection. These are matters on record. In our view, these records have not been impeached, or challenged in any manner before the Tribunal nor before this Court.
4. Thus, in view of the aforesaid records, we are unable to uphold the order of the Tribunal, which is set aside. The writ petition is consequently allowed. Accordingly, the consequential orders would follow the suit.
(Navaniti Prasad Singh, J)
MPS/- (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J)
U