Dismissed

Pankaj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC26 Sept 2022CWJC/14410/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by an employee removed by an office order. The court held that the original appointment lacked compliance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution as it was made without advertisement. Consequently, no reason existed to interfere with the removal order.

What did the court decide?

Writ application dismissed; no interference with the impugned office order dated 04.11.2016.

Pankaj Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14410 of 2018

¶2

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

¶3

Pankaj Kumar, Son of Shri Nagendra Prasad Shrivastava, Resident of Mohalla - Nai Bazar, Ward No. 4, P.S. Buxar, District - Buxar.

¶4

... ... Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State Of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶7

The Director, Library and Information Centre, Bihar, Patna.

¶8

The Incharge Director, Library and Information Centre, Bihar, Patna.

¶9

... ... Respondents

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr.Wasi Ahmad Khan, Advocate For the State : Mr.Nishant Kumar Jha, AC to SC28 ======================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD

¶12

ORAL ORDER

¶13

2 26-09-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

¶14

Petitioner claims to have been appointed by an Office Order dated 13.08.2012, issued by the Superintendent of Libraries, Bihar, Patna, as a ‘Sorter’ in the scale of Rs.425605/-.

¶15

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the communication dated 26.11.1956 issued by the Government (Annexure-2) empowers the Superintendent of Libraries, Patna, to make all appointments. It is submitted that since the petitioner has been appointed by the competent authority, against a vacant post, the petitioner’s removal by Office order dated 04.11.2016 is unsustainable.

¶16

Patna High Court CWJC No.14410 of 2018(2) dt.26-09-2022 2/3

¶17

The order dated 04.11.2016 reads as follows:-

¶18

"शश्री रराम नराररायण क क वर (ससेवराननववृत्त तत्करानलिक पकस्तकरालिय अधश्रीक्षक, नबिहरार, पटनरा कसे जरापपांक-355 नदिनपांक-13:08.2012 दराररा शश्री प क ज ककमरार नपतरा शश्री नगसेन्द प्रसरादि शश्रीवरास्तव, ममो० मश्रीलिराबिराग, महम्हस्वश्री ककॉलिसेज कसे ननकट, नजलिरा-अराररा कमो वसेतनमरान 425-605 करा प् र रकनभिक वसेतन पर नरागरश्री प्रचरानरणश्री नजलिरा कसेन्दश्रीय पकस्तकरालिय, आररा (भिमोजपकर) ममें अस्थरायश्री रूप ससे ससौट र ्ट कसे पदि पर ननमकनकत कश्री गई थश्री। चचकनक नबिनरा नवजरापन, नबिनरा रमोस्टर, नबिनरा सराक्षरात्करार एवक नबिनरा नवभिरागश्रीय आदिसेश प् र प्त नकयसे कश्री गई आपकश्री ननयकनकत कमो नवभिरागश्रीय जपांच कनमटश्री दराररा अववध परागरा गयरा।

¶19

नवभिरागश्रीय जजाँच कनमटश्री दराररा समनपर्टत प्रनतवसेदिन कश्री समश्रीक्षरा कश्री गयश्री। चचकनक शश्री ककमरार कश्री ननयकनकत नबिनरा ननयकनकत प्रनक्रियरा करा परालिन नकयसे नबिनरा हश्री कश्री गई थश्री, जमो पचणर्टततः अववध थश्री । अतएव इस करायर्यालिय कसे पतपांक-399 नदिनपांक-07 10.2016 दराररा शश्री ककमरार ससे करारण पवृच्छरा मपांगश्री गई, परन्तक इनकसे दराररा अपनरा नकसश्री प्रकरार करा करारण पवृच्छरा करायर्यालिय कमो उपलिब्ध नहहीं कररायरा गयरा ।

¶20

अततः वनणर्टत पनरनस्थनत ममें शश्री ककमरार कश्री ननयकनकत पत ननगर्टत कश्री नतनथ ससे रद्द कश्री जरातश्री हव। सराथ हश्री भिकगतरान कश्री गई ररानश कश्री वसचलिश्री भिश्री सकनननश्चित कश्री जराय । "

¶21

The petitioner has not denied or disputed the fact that his appointment was without any Advertisement or compliance with Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The claim of the petitioner that he has been appointed is also prima facie unsustainable based on the order dated 13.08.2012, which clearly specifies that he has been promoted against the vacant post of ‘Sorter’. Whether the post of ‘Sorter’ was in the line of

¶22

Patna High Court CWJC No.14410 of 2018(2) dt.26-09-2022 3/3

¶23

promotion from ‘Sweeper’ or not is another relevant issue which has not been addressed by the petitioner.

¶24

Even if submission of petitioner’s counsel that the Superintendent of Libraries was competent to appoint the petitioner against the vacant post of ‘Sorter’ is accepted as correct, it cannot be countenanced, that appointment be made arbitrarily, without any advertisement; and in violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.

¶25

There is no semblance of legality in the petitioner’s claimed temporary appointment under office order dated 13.08.2012. The same is not in compliance with Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

¶26

The Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned office order dated 04.11.2016. No case is made out for issuance of any writ.

¶27

Writ application is dismissed.

¶28

(Madhuresh Prasad, J)

¶29

shashank/-

¶30

Pankaj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shashi Kumar Ram Vs The State of Bihar

Munna Kumar @ Munna Pal Vs The State of Bihar

Priti Kumari Vs The State of Bihar

Dr. Nilam Sahay Vs The State of Bihar

Bibha Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Dhananjay Prasad @ Dhananjay Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.