Dismissed

The Bihar State Electricity Board and Ors. v. Rishi Raj and Anr.

Patna HC21 Jul 2015L.P.A/1471/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the appeal by two former employees of a power company who challenged their disqualification. The Court held that the authority was bound by its own advertisement (Advertisement No. 4 of 2007), and the petitioners' poor performance in a separate selection process (Advertisement No. 5 of 2007) could not be used to deny them the post for which they had already qualified.

What did the court decide?

Settled selection process from Advertisement No. 4 of 2007; Appeal dismissed against the Single Judge's order.

The Bihar State Electricity Board and Ors. Vs Rishi Raj… — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No 1471 of 2013 IN

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 18382 of 2012

¶3

===========================================================

¶4

The Bihar State Electricity Board, (Presently Bihar State Power (Holding) Company Ltd.), Through Its Chairman, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 2. The Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board (Presently Bihar State Power (Holding) Company Ltd.), Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 3. The Member (Administration), Bihar State Electricity Board (Presently Bihar State Power (Holding) Company Ltd.), Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 4. The Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board (Presently Bihar State Power (Holding) Company Ltd.), Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna

¶5

The Joint Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board (Presently Bihar State Power (Holding) Company Ltd.), Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna

¶6

.... .... Appellant/s

¶7

Versus

¶8

Rishi Raj S/O Late Harish Chandra Sinha R/O Flat No. 403, Green House, Patliputra Residency, Anandpuri, P.S.- S.K. Puri, Town And District- Patna 2. Alok Kumar S/O Late Rajendra Prasad Sharma Presently Residing At Ganga Vihar Colony, P.S. - Beur, Town and District- Patna

¶9

.... .... Respondent/s

¶10

=========================================================== For the Appellant/s : Mr Anand Kumar Ojha, Advocate

¶11

For the Respondent/s : Mr Shivendra Kishore, Sr Advocate with Mr Jai Kishor Poddar, Advocate

¶12

=========================================================== CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH

¶13

And

¶14

HON’BLE JUSTICE SMT NILU AGRAWAL

¶15

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶16

(Per: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH)

¶17

Date: 21-07-2015

¶18

IA No 8147 of 2013 has been filed for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Heard.

¶19

2 For the reasons stated, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. IA No 8147 of 2013 stands disposed of.

¶20

3 IA No 5696 of 2015 has been filed by the contesting

¶21

Patna High Court LPA No.1471 of 2013 dt.21-07-2015

¶22

¶23

respondents bringing to the notice of this Court that because of mere pendency of this intra-Court appeal, the appellants are not complying the judgment of the learned Single Judge which is in favour of the writ petitioners.

¶24

4 We consider it appropriate to dispose of this appeal at this stage itself with consent of parties because in our view, the issue involved is short and simple.

¶25

5 The writ petition was filed by the two petitioners who were employees of the Bihar State Power Transmission Company Limited, a subsidiary of Bihar State Power Holding Company Limited which is the percussion to the Bihar State Electricity Board. An advertisement was issued being Advertisement No 4 of 2007 for appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer. This was as against 2% quota fixed for employees of the Company. It provided for Computer Proficiency Test as a qualifying criteria and interview with minimum 30% pass marks. The other eligibility condition was that they must have degree of Graduation in Engineering. The two petitioners applied. Soon thereafter, Advertisement No 5 of 2007 was issued. This was for direct recruitment of Assistant Engineers from the open market. The eligibility was Engineering Degree and they had to pass a Screening Test to be conducted by the National Power Training Institute

¶26

Patna High Court LPA No.1471 of 2013 dt.21-07-2015

¶27

¶28

(NPTE), Faridabad. Petitioners, being Graduate in Engineering, also applied as against Advertisement No 5 of 2007. In the meantime, as against Advertisement No 4 of 2007, they cleared Computer Proficiency Test and were interviewed and they passed in interview but nothing further was being done. That forced the writ petitioners to come to this Court. That writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Company aforesaid to finalize the selection process within a time frame. Now when the process started, in respect of Advertisement No 5 of 2007, both these writ petitioners performed miserably in the Test conducted by the NPTI, Faridabad. Ultimately, the Company, not finalizing their selection process in respect of Advertisement No 4 of 2007, the writ petitioners filed contempt applications in this Court. The matter was then taken up by the Company and they have been declared unfit under Advertisement No 4 of 2007. That is what has brought them to this Court.

¶29

6 The learned Single Judge examined in detail that the two advertisements had two different selection processes. It was for two sources of appointment. Therefore, the result of one could not be taken into account to decide the fate of another examination. We find no reason to take a different view of the matter.

¶30

7 In respect of Advertisement No 4 of 2007, which was in respect of employees of the Company and restricted to 2% of

¶31

Patna High Court LPA No.1471 of 2013 dt.21-07-2015

¶32

¶33

the cadre, the only criteria were that they must be Graduate in Engineering, they must pass Computer Proficiency Test and they must not fail in interview. Both these writ petitioners met these criteria as set by the Company itself. Thus, having succeeded, the results of another examination and selection process cannot be taken into account to disqualify them. This is the view of the learned Single Judge with which we do not disagree.

¶34

8 In fairness to Mr Anand Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the appellants, we must notice one submission. He submits that the action taken by the Company was in larger public interest. The writ petitioners have performed miserably in the examination conducted by the NPTI. That reflects their quality and caliber. They scored much less than the persons who were the last to be selected as against Advertisement No 5.

¶35

9 Unfortunately, we cannot agree. The reason is simple. The conditions, eligibility and otherwise and the selection process including the Screening Test have been set out differently. It was open to the Management of the Company to set out special terms in Advertisement No 4 of 2007. They did not. They are, thus, bound by their own advertisement. The conditions cannot be altered midway. Once the writ petitioners qualified and satisfied the terms and conditions then it becomes constitutional obligation of the

¶36

Patna High Court LPA No.1471 of 2013 dt.21-07-2015

¶37

¶38

Company, which is State, to abide by what they had laid down in the Advertisement.

¶39

10 Thus, we find no merit in this appeal. It is,

¶40

accordingly, dismissed.

¶41

(Navaniti Prasad Singh, J)

¶42

M.E.H. /- (Nilu Agrawal, J)

¶43

The Bihar State Electricity Board and Ors. v. Rishi Raj and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Bihar State Electricity Board and Ors. v. Rishi Raj and Anr.

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

Bihar State Agro Industries De Vs Nawal Kishore Pd.Sinha and Ors.

Bihar Distillery Ltd. Vs Central Bank of India and Ors.

Umesh Singh and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

The State of Bihar and Ors. Vs Ishwar Nath Jha

The Union of India and Ors. Vs Smt.Jashoda Devi

The Union of India and Ors. Vs Smt.Kalawati Devi