Petitioners directly appointed as Inspectors Prohibition challenged the downgrading of their post from gazetted to non-gazetted due to cadre restructuring after their selection but before appointment. The Court dismissed the writ petition.
The writ petition seeking protection against downgradation and upgradation of posts was dismissed as devoid of merit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6246 of 2022
======================================================
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhananjay Kumar, Advocate Mr. Kumar Amit, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Advocate General Mr. Vikash Kumar (SC-11) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY CAV JUDGMENT
Patna High Court CWJC No.6246 of 2022 dt. 24-01-2024 2/10
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 24-01-2024
The petitioners, directly appointed ‘Inspectors, Prohibition’ pursuant to the 63rd Combined Competitive Examination (for brevity ‘CCE’) conducted by the Bihar Public Service Commission (for brevity ‘BPSC’) are aggrieved with the alleged downgrading of the post from gazetted to nongazetted. The petitioners contend that the advertisement for the 63rd ‘CCE’ was under the Bihar Excise Service (Recruitment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 2009’). After the advertisement issued on 09.11.2017, the 7th Pay Commission recommended restructuring of the cadre of Bihar Excise Service.
Patna High Court CWJC No.6246 of 2022 dt. 24-01-2024 3/10
Conditions) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules of 2017’).
Patna High Court CWJC No.6246 of 2022 dt. 24-01-2024 4/10
gazetted post. In fact, the persons who were appointed pursuant to the 67th ‘CCE’ as ‘Superintendent, Prohibition’ have stolen a march over those appointed as ‘Inspectors, Prohibition’ under the 63rd ‘CCE’. The petitioners also seek upgradation of the persons appointed under the 63rd ‘CCE’ as Superintendent, Prohibition. The petitioners rely on P. Mahendran and others v. State of Karnataka and others; (1990) 1 SCC 411 and I.J. Divakar and others v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and another; (1982) 3 SCC 341 .
Patna High Court CWJC No.6246 of 2022 dt. 24-01-2024 5/10
persons under the 67th ‘CCE’ were appointed to the post of ‘Superintendent, Prohibition’, the entry level at the gazetted rank as per the new rules.
Patna High Court CWJC No.6246 of 2022 dt. 24-01-2024 6/10
the time the advertisement was issued and the appointment was carried out, the cadre was restructured. The post to which the selection was conducted was made a non-gazetted post and it was placed at the top of the hierarchy of non-gazetted posts. The restructuring of the cadre resulted in the ‘Superintendent, Prohibition’ being made the entry level post. The petitioners could not have been appointed to the entry level since it was a higher post which had a higher scale of pay also. In fact, there was a restructuring of posts and not a redesignation. As noticed above, the petitioners had accepted the appointment and joined the service without demur. Those who were appointed under the 67th ‘CCE’ were appointed to the post of ‘Superintendent, Prohibition’, a higher post than that of ‘Inspector, Prohibition’.
Patna High Court CWJC No.6246 of 2022 dt. 24-01-2024 7/10
not vitiated by the amendment to the rules. The amendment made was to the very qualification of the candidates who are eligible to apply and this would have definitely prejudiced the persons who applied under the old rules, some of whom would have been disqualified based on the amendment to the rules. This is the circumstance under which the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the selection carried out as per the old rules. The prescription as to ‘ there can be no change in the rules after the game has commenced ’ applies to the selection process and not to the post to which appointment is made.
Patna High Court CWJC No.6246 of 2022 dt. 24-01-2024 8/10
least challenged the appointment immediately on the ground of the restructuring being bad. In any event, we are not convinced that there is a flaw in the Government having appointed the persons to the post advertised, the cadre in which it was included was restructured, even before the advertisement was issued.
Patna High Court CWJC No.6246 of 2022 dt. 24-01-2024 9/10
Patna High Court CWJC No.6246 of 2022 dt. 24-01-2024 10/10
Excise’ and not to those persons recruited subsequently. The Rules admittedly were brought out in 2017 and the appointments were made as per Annexure-3 on 19.02.2020.
(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ)
Rajiv Roy, J: I agree.
P.K.P./-
| AFR/NAFR | |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | 18.01.2024 |
| Uploading Date | 24.01.2024 |
| Transmission Date |
3 issues framed by the court
Whether direct appointees to a gazetted post can claim protection against subsequent downgrading of the post to non-gazetted during the recruitment process.
Whether a restructuring of cadres after an advertisement invalidates appointments made to the restructured post.
Whether the petitioners have a legitimate expectation to remain in a gazetted rank after accepting appointment to a non-gazetted post.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
P. Mahendran and others v. State of Karnataka and othersDistinguished¶8
P. Mahendran and others v. State of Karnataka and others; (1990) 1 SCC 411 · Who else cites this
I.J. Divakar and others v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and anotherFollowed¶11
I.J. Divakar and others v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and another; (1982) 3 SCC 341 · Who else cites this
Prakash Kumar and others
The State of Bihar
K. Vinod Chandran
Rajiv Roy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
