In a recent legal development, a court scrutinized a relegation order that raised concerns about principles of natural justice. The court emphasized the need to adhere to its specific instructions from previous orders, especially in cases with potential adverse consequences on individuals. This case underscores the critical role of the court’s legal analysis in ensuring justice and fairness in legal proceedings.
Facts
- Petitioner was appointed into Bihar Administrative Service after being finally selected and as per his placement in the order of merit.
- Petitioner served almost 15 years in Bihar Administrative Service.
- First respondent’s order dated 23 July, 2020, relegated the petitioner to Bihar Education Service without a hearing.
- Petitioner approached the court due to lack of opportunity for hearing as per the order of 23 October 2019 in Civil Appeal No 3307 of 2015.
- Respondent no. 5, Baldeo Choudhary, also participated in the same examination but did not become a member of Bihar Administrative Service.
- The order dated 19 March, 2012 was challenged in a Letters Patent Appeal by the Commission.
- The Division Bench of the High Court of Patna decided the appeal on 29 November 2012.
- The relief granted by the Single Judge under the order dated 19 March, 2012 was molded by the Division Bench.
Also Read: Legal Case: Sentence Reduction in Non-Compoundable Offence
Analysis
- The petitioner challenged his unsuitability determined by the Commission after almost four years of the process, leading to a writ petition filed before the High Court of Patna in 2008.
- The learned Single Judge, in a judgment dated 19 March 2012, found an error in the evaluation of the petitioner’s answer script, leading to his qualification for appointment.
- The State is directed to consider the respondent for appointment within three months and pay him salary from the date of joining duty.
- The Commission revised the merit list following a court order, which placed the original writ petitioner at a higher position, leading to the petitioner being relegated from Bihar Administrative Service to Bihar Education Service in July 2020.
- The petitioner, who had served almost 15 years in his cadre, was not heard during this revision, violating principles of natural justice and court orders.
- The Division Bench judgment from November 2012, confirmed in October 2019, had specific relief only for the original writ petitioner and not for others in the select list from 2001.
- This specific relief was overturned by the Commission’s wholesale revision of the merit list, affecting the petitioner adversely.
- The Court’s orders emphasized not granting retrospective benefits to the original writ petitioner and not disturbing the appointments made based on the 2001 select list.
- The State Government, in compliance with a court order, relegated the petitioner to Bihar Education Service, sparking the current challenge.
- The petitioner challenges the relegation, arguing that it goes against the principles of natural justice and the court’s specific instructions from previous orders.
- The Court notes that the respondent is already employed in the Sales Tax Department of the State.
- The respondents were required to place the writ petitioner in the appropriate place in the select list recommended by the Commission.
- The petitioner was to be considered for appointment to a particular service based on his revised placement in the select list with seniority and other notional benefits of service.
- Relegating the petitioner to the Bihar Education Service after 15 years of service in the Bihar Administrative Service was deemed to have adverse civil consequences.
- The order passed by the respondents on July 23, 2020, without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, violated the principles of natural justice.
- The defence of the respondents, claiming compliance with the court’s order dated October 23, 2019, was deemed misplaced by the Court.
- The Court clarified its previous orders to rule out any apprehensions by the Commission in implementing the Division Bench’s order dated November 29, 2012.
Also Read: Recovery of Misappropriated Temple Funds: Court’s Legal Analysis
Decision
- The Commission had no justification to revise the select list of 45 Combined Competitive Examination after a 15-year lapse
- Baldeo Choudhary’s case was unique and needed to be considered for appointment without disturbing cadre/seniority of others
- The order dated 23 July, 2020 was not justified as it relegated the petitioner from Bihar Administrative Service to Bihar Education Service after 15 years of service
- The writ petition was allowed, and the order dated 23 July, 2020 was quashed
Also Read: Determining Seniority in Delayed Appointments: Legal Analysis
Case Title: SUBHASH KUMAR Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR (2020 INSC 644)
Case Number: W.P.(C) No.-000798 / 2020
