IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.9047 of 2010
1. Md. Abbas Alam, S/O Late Ramzan Ali, R/V Birania Ward No. 5, Nagar
Panchayat, Bahadurganj,Kishanganj.
2. Vishnu Kant Jha, S/O Late Bhuranjha, R/V And P.O. Pali Mohan , P.S.
Khazauli, District- Madhubani.
3. Prem Shankar Singh, S/O Late Sadhu Ram Singh, R/V Belsand (Tola
Dadhbigha) P.O.+P.S. Belsand,District- Sitamarhi.
4. Rajendra Prasad Singh, S/O Late Vishwanath Singh, R/V +P.O.
Jagdishpur Via (Chainpur) P.S. And District-Siwan.
5. Ravindranath Sharma, S/O Late Ram Narayan Sharma, R/V And P.O. And
P.S. Bisfy, District Madhubani.
6. Shatrughan Pathak, S/O Late Lakshman Pathak, R/V + P.O.
Bagaura,P.S.- Daraunda,District-Siwan.
7. Shyam Sunder Prasad, S/O Late Daya Shankar Prasad, R/M Hathsarganj
P.O. And P.S. Hajipur Town District Vaishali.
8. Arun Kumar Srivastava, S/O Late Annuridh Prasad Srivastava R/V
Shivpuri (Near B.B.M. High School),P.O. And P.S. Purnia, District-
Purnia.
9. Devanand Srivastav, S/O Late Kamta Prasad Srivastava, R/M Maripur,
P.S. Kaji, Mohammadpur,District- Kishanganj.
10. Shiv Shankar Ram, S/O Late Ram Ashish Ram, R/V Karanpur Bochahan,
P.S. .....District- Muzaffarpur.
11. Shankar Rajak, S/O Late Mahavir Razak, R/V + P.O. + P.S -
Gangjala, District- Saharsa.
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar Through The Chief Secretary, Govt. Of
Bihar,Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Reform, Govt. Of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Principal Secretary,Department Of Rural Development,Govt. Of
Bihar,Patna.
4. The Principal Secretary , Department Of Personnel And
Administrative Reform,Govt. Of Bihar,Patna.
5. The Principal Secretary, Labour Resources Department,Govt.Of
Bihar,Patna.
6. The Deputy Secretary, Labour Employment And Training Department.
7. The Labour Commissioner,Bihar,Patna.
8. The Deputy Secretary, Department Of Home (Special),Govt. Of
Bihar,Patna.
-----------
For the Petitioners: Mr. Ram Suresh Roy, Sr. Advocate with
M/s Sanjay Kumar Tiary & Shakti Suman Kumar,
Advocates
For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar II, G.A. 5 with
Mr. Amaresh Kumar Sinha, AC to GA 5
———
6. 28.06.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned
Counsel for the State.
The petitioners hold the post of Labour Enforcement Officer
under the Bihar Rural Development Services. The State Government in
the Rural Development Department framed Bihar Gramin Seva
Sambarg Niyamabali, 2010 under Article 309 of the Constitution dated
2
19.1.2010 (hereinafter referred to as „the appointment regulations‟).
Rule 8(b) of the regulations provides for interim appointments pending
regular appointments, when the interim appointments shall cease
automatically. On 19.1.2010 the Rural Department issued a notification
in exercise of powers under Rule 8(b) for filling up vacancies of Block
Development Officers by such interim appointment for a duration of
three years on deputation. On 6.2.2010 inclusive of a corrigendum an
advertisement was issued by the Rural Development Department
inviting applications from the holders of specified posts in the identified
departments mentioned therein for appointment on the post of Block
Development Officer.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that fixing a cut off
age limit of 52 years as eligibility to apply for such deputation is
arbitrary. There is no rationale or logic behind fixation of this age limit. A
person shall remain eligible and agile at the age of 53 years also. The
second contention is that if the age limit is not enhanced, the petitioners
may be compelled to work under their juniors who shall be appointed on
deputation as Block Development Officer and shall supervise the works
of the petitioners.
A classification based on age cannot per se be said to be
arbitrary. If the classification is done arbitrarily without any logic or
rationale there may be occasion for the Court to interfere but if the
respondents urge a rationale and a logic it is not the jurisdiction of the
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to sit over the wisdom of the
administrator and supplant its own views in place of the administrator.
This Court in CWJC No. 6826 in a challenge arising out of the same
rules has held as follows:-
3
“The law stands well settled that it is for the employer
to specify its own need for the kind of personnel it
requires for discharge of specified nature of works.
This Court cannot redefine the needs and eligibility
specified by the Government as per its own
understanding.”
These observations were derived from the judgment of the
Supreme Court in AIR 1990 SC 535 (J. Ranga Swamy vs Government
of Andhra Pradesh & ors.) which held at Para 6 as follows:-
“6. …………… It is not for the Court to consider the
relevance of qualifications prescribed for various
posts. …. There is nothing prima facie preposterous
about this requirements. It is not for us to assess the
comparative merits of such a doctorate and the BARC
diploma held by the petitioner and decide or direct
what should be the qualifications to be prescribed for
the post in question…..”
Reliance as also further placed on (2002) 6 SCC 252 (State of
Rajasthan vs. Lata Arun).
The respondents in their counter affidavit state that given the
nature of duties to be performed by Block Development Officers,
regular, frequent field visit with long stressful working hours are
required. Healthy, young and energetic person are therefore better
suited for the same.
The ground urged by the respondents can certainly not be
classified as devoid of rationale and logic rendering it ipso facto
arbitrary. Once reason has been furnished and those administrative
reasoning have their own rationale and logic the court cannot start
examining the sufficiency of the reasoning in exercise of powers of its
judicial review.
The grievance that the petitioners may be asked to work under
their juniors, does not persuade the Court to so lightly interfere with the
scheme of the State Government which otherwise has been explained
4
as it clearly carries a palliative for the petitioners that it is an interim
arrangement to cease after three years only. If this has been done in
the interest of administration and to ensure smooth continuity in
government scheme the Court shall not lightly interfere with the same.
However if the respondents do not stand by the original scheme of
keeping the post on deputation for three years only and seek to extend
it by giving it some kind of permanency or semi permanency surely the
petitioners shall have a legitimate grievance.
The writ application is dismissed with the aforesaid observation.
Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)