w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Badri Nath Prasad v/s State of Bihar

    C.W.J.C. 4179 Of 2002

    Decided On, 29 August 2005

    At, High Court of Bihar

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NARAYAN ROY

    For the Appearing Parties: Khurshid Alam, Advocate.



Judgment Text

NARAYAN ROY, J.

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order, as contained in annexure 7 dated 9.8.2002, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been reverted from the post of Mistri to the post of Kamdar.

(3.) It is submitt

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ed by learned counsel for the petitioner that by virtue of the order passed by this Court, as contained in annexure 1, the case of the petitioner was examined by the authorities and finding him eligible for the post of Mistri, he was promoted on the post of Mistri vide order as contained in annexure 1/A, issued vide memo No. 219 dated 5th February, 1997. The petitioner continued on the post and all of a sudden, a show-cause notice was given to him as, contained in annexure 5 dated 27.2.2002 as to why the promotion granted to him on the post of Mistri may not be cancelled. The petitioner filed reply to the show-cause notice and thereafter order impugned was passed. It is also submitted that the petitioner since was having the requisite qualification of Matriculation, he was considered for the post of Mistri and, accordingly, he was promoted to the post of Mistri from the post of Kamdar. It is further submitted that in the gradation list, his qualification has been mentioned and, therefore, the order impugned, as contained in annexure 7, is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. It is also submitted that the order impugned has been passed without application of proper mind, as a decision rendered by this Court in CWJC No. 9233 of 1998, has been referred, which is completely unconnected with the facts of this case. The order passed by this Court in CWJC No. 9233 of 1998 has been brought on record, marked as annexure 2.

(4.) On bare perusal of annexure 2, it appears that it was for a different question and it has no nexus with the case at hand.

(5.) The question, which has fallen now for consideration is as to whether the promotion granted to the petitioner on the post of Mistri, was illegal and wholly without jurisdiction.

(6.) It appears from the materials on record that pursuant to the order, as contained in annexure 1, the petitioner was considered for promotion and keeping in view his qualification, he was promoted to the post of Mistri.

(7.) The order impugned in that view of the matter, appears to be wholly without jurisdiction.

(8.) Though a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State, no plausible explanation has been given for reverting the petitioner from the post of Mistri to the post of Kamdar.

(9.) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons aforementioned, the order impugned, as contained in annexure 7, is held tb be arbitrary, illegal and wholly without jurisdiction.

(10.) In the result, this application is allowed and the order, as contained in annexure 7, is set aside. No order as to costs
O R