Dismissed

Bhupal Krishna Prasad v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC21 Jan 2014CWJC/1877/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court dismissed two writ petitions challenging the Bihar Public Service Commission's advertisement to recruit Curators. The Court upheld the maximum age limit fixed as of 1.8.2007, rejecting the petitioner's claim for further concession based on a State Government circular due to excessive time gaps since the last recruitment. The advertisements were held rational and non-interferen

What did the court decide?

The writ applications were dismissed.

Bhupal Krishna Prasad Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1877 of 2013

¶2

====================================================== 1. Bhupal Krishna Prasad Son Of Sri Jay Krishna Prasad Resident Of Patliputra Residency, Anand Puri, P.S. Patliputra, District Patna .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, Through the Secretary, Art, Culture And Youth Dept. Bihar, Patna 2. The Secretary, B.P.S.C., Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Bailey Road, Patna 3. Examination Controller, B.P.S.C., Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg Road, Patna .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22743 of 2013 ====================================================== 1. Ashok Kumar Sinha Son Of Late Chandeshwar Prasad Sinha C/O Ramesh Thakur, (North Of Pump House) Mohalla- Mohanpur, Punaichak, Patna, Distt.- Patna .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through Chairman cum Secretary Museum, Directorate 2. The Secretary, B.P.S.C. Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Baily Road, Patna 3. The Examination Controller, B.P.S.C. Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Patna 4. The Secretary, Art, Culture and Youth Department, Patna 5. The Director, Art, Culture and Youth Department, Patna 6. The Secretary, General Administration, Government Of Bihar, Patna .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : (In CWJC No.1877 of 2013) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Surendra Kishore Thakur For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anil Kr Upadhyay, SC 20 Mr Sanjay Pandey (In CWJC No.22743 of 2013) For the Petitioner/s : Mr Surendra Kishore Thakur Mr. Alok Kumar Jha For the Respondent/s : Mr Kaushal Kishor, AC to GP 23 Mr. Sanjay Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL ORDER

¶3

11 21-01-2014 Both the writ applications, more or less, raise a similar question of law while assailing the advertisement, which has been issued by the Bihar Public Service Commission to fill

¶4

Patna High Court CWJC No.1877 of 2013 (11) dt.21-01-2014

¶5

2/6

¶6

up the post of Curator. Annexure- 6 is the advertisement in CWJC No.22743 of 2013 and the same advertisement is Annexure- 3 in the second writ application.

¶7

One distinguishing feature, according to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Ashok Kumar Sinha is that he has been working as Gallery Incharge on contract basis in Patna Museum for the last couple of years and he has missed the opportunity of being selected or appointed because he is overage

¶8

as per condition no.(ii) of the advertisement. Counsel representing the said petitioner, therefore, wants his case to be treated with some more indulgence and compassion keeping in mind his exposure and experience working in similar capacity as also the fact that he was overage at the time of advertisement by little over a year.

¶9

The main question which is urged at the bar is whether the respondent authorities have been fair in fixing 1.8.2007 as the cut off date in relation to the maximum age of various categories of candidates, who were eligible to apply and be considered for such appointment. Petitioners take a stand that there is a circular of the State Government taking into consideration the ground reality that for many a posts, exercise for recruitment and appointment has not been held for many a

¶10

Patna High Court CWJC No.1877 of 2013 (11) dt.21-01-2014

¶11

3/6

¶12

years wherein candidates, who were otherwise eligible, have become over age. Therefore, in terms of the letter dated 23.1.2006, which is Annexure- 12 to the supplementary affidavit in the 2^nd writ application, the State Government does envisage a situation where some kind of indulgence is required to be shown vis – a- vis the last advertisement and the time when a new advertisement is issued for such recruitment.

¶13

Petitioners are looking for advantage on the basis of said circular of the State Government and, therefore, their main thrust of argument is based on Annexure- 12.

¶14

The Court has gone through the circular of the State and can well appreciate the reason why such a circular came to be issued. To some extent, it can be said that the State was trying to redeem the situation for not holding examinations or initiating process of selection on a regular basis by giving some leeway in the age.

¶15

But to stretch that circular beyond a point would neither be helping the Government nor the administration in any manner for after all there has to be a reasonable age of appointment giving adequate time for such a hired person to deliver and perform as well as to acquire skill and be productive to society. It is not a question of mere employment but getting

¶16

Patna High Court CWJC No.1877 of 2013 (11) dt.21-01-2014

¶17

4/6

¶18

the benefit out of such employment, which is also an aspect, which cannot be ignored.

¶19

Yet another factor which the Court would like to record is that if leeway and concession is granted to such persons way past their productive age, there will not be many number of years to beget even the benefit of pension and post retrial dues, which is bound to be a demotivating factor for a hired employee at such a late stage.

¶20

As it is a look of the advertisement itself would show that in these circumstances the State Government has fixed 37 years for unreserved category male and 42 years for scheduled caste and scheduled tribe man and woman as of 1.8.2007 even though advertisement is of 3.10.2012. It is rather enhanced age for any recruitment that too at the threshold of such selection and not a recruitment or appointment at a higher position looking at the skill and the experience of the person being recruited.

¶21

It is rather unfortunate that the post which is sought to be filled up in terms of the advertisement was not filled up for many years and I am informed that the last examination was held in 1987 i.e. good 37 years ago. It is long a time frame as well as a gap between the last recruitment and the present recruitment to extend the benefit of the circular contained in Annexure- 12

¶22

Patna High Court CWJC No.1877 of 2013 (11) dt.21-01-2014

¶23

5/6

¶24

because if such a circular is interpreted in a liberal fashion, there will be occasion for some person to be recruited near the age of their superannuation.

¶25

In the above circumstances, the date so fixed in the advertisement, which was issued on 3.10.2012, has already provided for concession by keeping the maximum age on 1.8.2007, which is good a advantage of almost five years, probably taking into consideration the fact that there was a long gap between the last advertisement and the present one. But to further dilute it in any manner will surely have a detrimental effect to such process of selection and appointment.

¶26

The Court does not find any irrationality in putting a maximum age on 1.8.2007 as well as keeping the maximum age possible for such recruitment for candidates, who would be selected and appointed.

¶27

In absence of any irrationality being pointed out in terms of the constitutional provision or any statute, the advertisement is not required to be interfered with. The Court is in no way inclined to interfere with the advertisement when the recommendation on the basis of examination has already been made.

¶28

So far as the distinguishing feature which the counsel

¶29

Patna High Court CWJC No.1877 of 2013 (11) dt.21-01-2014

¶30

6/6

¶31

for the petitioner in Ashok Kumar Sinha’s case is concerned, it is a matter of policy for the State to decide taking into consideration the experience and past work which the said petitioner has put in, may be on a contractual basis.

¶32

Writ applications are dismissed with the observation as above.

¶33

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)

¶34

Bhupal Krishna Prasad v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhupal Krishna Prasad v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shubham a.n.m. Training School Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Ravi Prakash Narayan and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Ravi Prakash Narayan Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Shankar Pd. Choudhary Vs The Bihar Public Service Commission and Ors.

Ram Mohan Prasad Sinha Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Ram Briksh Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.