Patna High Court
Ashok Kumar Choudhary vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 6 February, 2012
Author: Shivaji Pandey
Bench: Shivaji Pandey
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9031 of 1998
===========================================================
Ashok Kumar Choudhary son of Sri Basant Kumar Choudhary, resident of Mohalla
Punaichak, P.S. Shastrinagar District Patna.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.The State Of Bihar .
2.The Secretary, Energy Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3.The Bihar Renewable Energy and Development Agency, through its Director
cum-Addl. Secretary, having its office at Dr.T.N. Banerjee Road, Chhajjubagh,
Patna.
4.The Chairman, Bihar Renewable Energy and Development Agency, having its
Office at Dr. T.N.Banerjee Road, Chhajjubagh, Patna.
.... .... Respondent/s
===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : None.
For the Respondent No.3 : Mr. Manu Shankar Mishra,Adv.
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 06-02-2012 =========================================================== The case was called out on 21st December 2011 but no one was present on behalf of petitioner. On the last occasion, case was again heard on 31st January 2012 but no one was present on behalf of petitioner and the case was listed to-day under the heading 'For Orders'. Even to-day no one is present to represent the petitioner
2. Heard learned counsel for the respondents and this Court has no other option but to pass order in absence of counsel for the petitioner.
3. In this case, basically the petitioner has claimed that rejection of his candidature for being appointed on Class-IV post on the ground that he did not possess the requisite qualification is completely illegal and, as such, he has challenged the order issued by Respondent no.3 vide Memo No. 326 dated 4 th June 1998 (Annexure-9) whereby his claim for regularization/appointment has been rejected and by the same order his services have been terminated with effect 2 Patna High Court CWJC No.9031 of 1998 dt.06-02-2012 2/4 from 5th June 1998.
4. According to the facts mentioned in the writ petition, petitioner was appointed initially on 24th January 1987 against the sanctioned post in the scale of Rs.350-425/- on ad hoc basis for three months by Solar Division, Patna under the Department of Energy. In the year 1987, Bihar Renewable Energy Development Agency (for short, 'BREDA') was created and in consequence thereof, services of petitioner and others were transferred to that Agency. The services of the petitioner were extended from time to time such as vide Memo Nos.17 dated 22nd April 1987, 296 dated 23rd July 1987, 631 dated 23rd October 1987, 1345 dated 21st April 1988 and 1050 dated 7th November 1989 and thereafter on 31st July 1990, the services of petitioner and others were terminated vide Annexure-3. In the letter of termination it was mentioned that the petitioner and others were appointed on ad hoc basis and ultimately their services were no longer required and as such, were terminated with effect from 31st July 1990.
5. Petitioner challenged the said order before this Court in C.W.J.C.No. 7839 of 1991 and vide order dated 9thApril 1993 the case was disposed of to fill up the vacant post of peon and while giving appointment, the cases of petitioner should also be considered giving relaxation of age and if the agency finds that they were suitable then their cases should also be considered.
6. According to the petitioner, when nothing happened, again petitioner filed C.W.J.C.No.3662 of 1996 and this Court disposed of the writ petition vide order dated 9th'April 1997 (Annexure-5) and while disposing of the writ petition, this Court held that any regular appointment in the Agency would be made in accordance with the direction passed in C.W.J.C.No. 7839 of 1991 and M.J.C.No.1238 of 1993 and the petition was accordingly, disposed of.
7. It appears from the record that the Managing Director, BREDA 3 Patna High Court CWJC No.9031 of 1998 dt.06-02-2012 3/4 vide letter No. 220 dated 18th December 1996 appointed the petitioner as daily wage worker and this was done on the basis of direction issued by this Court and the Lokayukta. In pursuance of the direction of this Court, BREDA has taken an exercise to appoint the persons on regular basis and in pursuance thereof petitioner was also issued interview letter vide letter no. 259 dated 12th May 1998 (Annexure-8) and, accordingly, petitioner was called upon to appear before the Selection Committee along with certificates mentioned in the letter. In pursuance thereof petitioner appeared with certificates but his candidature was rejected on the ground lack of minimum qualification as he had not passed Class-VIII.
8. After rejection of claim of petitioner, he filed representation on 4th July 1998(Annexure-10) and in the writ petition he has mentioned the names of some persons claiming that they were junior to the petitioner. Petitioner has basically challenged that his qualification should not be the basis for rejection of his claim as he has already discharged the duty on the said post. But the fact is that this Agency is the instrumentality of the State and the rules and regulations of appointment are equally applicable in the matter of appointment of employees of Corporation till framing of its own rules.
9. The Agency has filed a counter affidavit and in the counter affidavit in Para-4 it has been stated that the Employment Exchange, Patna was requested to send0 his name. The Selection Committee duly constituted to take the interview of persons including those working in the BREDA and it fixed the qualification as per the letter of the Government dated 25th April 1997. According to the said letter, the requisite qualification for a candidate to be appointed on Class-IV post was Class-VIII passed and not above the qualification of Praveshika.
10. In this case, petitioner has not challenged any notification rather 4 Patna High Court CWJC No.9031 of 1998 dt.06-02-2012 4/4 he has accepted that he does not have minimum requisite qualification for being appointed on Class-IV post and from the pleading of the writ petition and the pleadings in the counter affidavit it appears that it is the admitted position of fact that petitioner did not have the minimum qualification on the date of consideration of his candidature.
11. In a similar matter, in the case of Marchchiya Devi v. The State of Bihar and others, C.W.J.C.No.14218 of 2005, this Court has considered the issue of minimum qualification even on compassionate ground and rejected the claim only on the sole consideration that the petitioner of that case did not possess the qualification of Class-VIII and that judgment has been upheld in intra court appeal in LPA No. 1109 of 2011.
12. In this view of the matters, I find no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed, but without any costs.
Jay/- (Shivaji Pandey, J)