IN THE MATTER OF APPLCIATION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
---------
CWJC No.4942 of 1999
1. SYED NEYAZ AHMAD S/O LATE SYED MOHAMMAD WASIM, MOHALLA
SATTAR MISTRY LANE, KARIMGANJ, PS- CIVIL LINES, GAYA
DISTT- GAYA
2. MOHAMMAD RASHID S/O SAMSUL HODA MOHALLA ABBAS LANE,
KARIMGANJ,PS- CIVIL LINES,GAYA,DISTT- GAYA- PETITIONERS
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. THE SECY. DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL & ADMINISTRATIVE
REFORMS. GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
3. THE SECY. ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR
VISHWARAIYA BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA
4. THE SECY WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF
BIHAR,SACHAI BHAWAN OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA
5. THE BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, 15 JAWAHAR LAL
NEHRU MARG, PATNA THROUGH ITS SECY.
6. THE CHAIRMAN BPSC. , PATNA
7. THE OFFICE-ON-SPECIAL DUTY BPSC., PATNA—RESPONDENTS
with
CWJC No.1390 of 1998
1. ARUN KUMAR S/O SRI SHEO SHARAN SINGH R/O VILL- ASOPUR
PS- DANAPUR DISTRICT PATNA
2. AMRENDRA KUMAR S/O SRI SURENDRA SINGH R/O VILL-
MUHAMMADPUR PS- PHULWARISHARIF, DISTT- PATNA
3. MANOJ KUMAR S/O SRI INDRA MOHAN PD SINHA, R/O MOHALLA
EAST PATEL NAGAR PS- SHASTRI NAGAR, DISTT- PATNA
4. SANJIW NAYAN S/O SRI LALESHWAR PD SINGH R/O VILL BHAIKH
PS- MAKHDUMPUR DISTT- JEHANABAD
5. BAIDEHI SHARAN SINGH S/O GANESH SINGH R/O VILL-NAWADIH
PS- BANKE BAZAR DISTT- GAYA
6. DEVENDRA PRATAP SINGH S/O RAM ACHCHHE SINGH R/O VILL-
MURLICHAK PS- GARDANIBAGH DISTT- PATNA
7. JITENDRA PD. S/O GUPTESHWAR PD. R/O QR. NO. C/2 NEW
IRRIGATION COLONY, PS- DEHRI-ON-SONE DISTT-ROHTAS
8. RAN VIJAY PATHAK S/O GARAKH NATH PATHAK R/O VILL-
SAISAR PS-SAISAR DISTT- ROHTAS
9. ANUP KUMAR S/O ARJUN PD. R/O F/188 PC.COLONY PS-
KANKARBAGH, DISTT- PATNA
10. SUDHIR KUMAR S/O DEVENDRA SHARMA R/O B/181 BIRLA
COLONY, PS- PHULWARISHARIF DISTT- PATNA
11. CHANDRA BILAS PD. YADAV S/O DEVLAGAN PD. R/O
MOHALLA ANISHBAD(PAHARPUR MORE) PS- GARDANIBAGH, DISTT-
PATNA
12. NAGENDDRA NATH PATHAK S/O LALAN PATHAK R/O QR.
690, LBS NAGAR PS- SHASTRI NAGAR, DISTT- PATNA
13. GOPAL PANDEY S/O RAMJEE PANDEY R/O A/58 HOUSING
COLONY LOHIA NAGAR PS- KANKARBAGH, DISTT- PATNA
14. SIDHESHWAR PD. SINGH S/O BRAHMDEO SIGNH R/O VILL-
ITWAN PS- KARAKAT DISTT- ROHTAS.
15. NIRMAL KUMAR SINHA S/O LATE K.K.SHRIVASTAVA R/O
QR. NO. E/4 INDRAPURI PS- DEHRI-ON-SONE DISTT-ROHTAS—
—————————–PETITIONERS
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS( THE RESPONDENTS ARE THE SAME
AS IN CWJC No. 4942/99)
with
CWJC No.3704 of 1998
1. SHASHI BHUSHAN KUMAR S/O RAMESHWAWR SINGH R/O VILL-
DILLU BIGHA PS- SILAO DISTT- NALANAD PRESENTLY RESIDING
-2-
AT MOHALLA KAMARUDDINGANJ C/O CHANDRA SHEKHAR PD, NEAR
OLD POST OFFICE PO/PS-BIHARSHARIF DISTT- NALANDA
2. JITENDRA KUMAR SINGH S/O RAM NARESH PD. SINGH R/O
MOHALLA UDANI PURI (KILAPAR) PO & PS-BIHARSHARIF,
DISTT- NALANDA————-PETITIONERS
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS( RESPONDENTS ARE THE SAME AS
IN CWJC. NO. 4942/99)
with
CWJC No.4495 of 1998
JAGDISH SINGH S/O HRIDAYA NARAIN SINGH R/O BAZARKONA PO
& PS-KUDRA, DISTT- KAIMUR AT BHABUA—-PETITIONER
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS (RESPONDENTS ARE THE SAME AS IN
CWJC NO.4942/99)
with
CWJC No.6253 of 1999
1. MD. KAZMI ALAM S/O LATE ALI HUSSAIN, QUADRI MANZIL,
MOHALLA KARIMGANJ PS- CIVIL LINES, GAYA, DISTT- GAYA
2. TRISHUL KUMAR SINHA S/O MUNDRIKA PD. SINHA, JAI PRAKASH
NAGAR GAWALBIGHA PS- CIVIL LINES, GAYA, DISTT- GAYA
3. MOHD. ADIL HASSAN S/O MOHD. NAZIMUDDIN R/O VILL-
CHHATARGHAT, PO- LUXMI NAGAR, PS- CHANDAUTI DISTT- GAYA
AT PRESENT SHARIF MANZIL, DR. HARIDAS CHATTERJEE LANE
PS- CIVIL LINES, GAYA DISTT- GAYA
4. MD. SHAFI AKHTAR S/O LATE MOJIBUR RAHMAN C/O SAMI
AKHTAR, HASAN LANE, KARIMGANJ, PS- CIVIL LANE, GAYA,
DISTT- GAYA———————-PETITIONERS
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS( RESPONDENTS ARE THE SAME AS IN
CWJC. NO. 4942 OF 99)
with
CWJC No.4798 of 1998
1. SHREE RAVI PRAKASH S/O MADAN PD. SRIVASTAVA R/O QR. NO.
5/381 LOHIA NAGAR PS- KANKARBAGH, MOHALLA KANKARBAGH,
DISTT- PATNA.
2. ANJANI KUMAR SINHA S/O AWADH MUNI PD. R/O 110, DEFENCE
COLONY KANKARBAGH PS- KANKARBAGH DISTT- PATNA
3. SANTOSH KUMAR S/O DADAN PRASAD R/O BRIGHT CAREER SCHOOL,
MOHALLA- GAURAKAHANI (GAJRAR) PS- SASRRAM DISTT- ROHTAS
4. BIRENDRA KUMAR SINGH S/O BANSHDHARI SINGH VERMA R/O
SEAM, GHANCHANI BUNGLOW PO- BERMO DISTT-GIRIDIH
5. RAMAKANT SINGH S/O RAMA NATH SINGH R/O VILL- MOHADDIGANJ
(RAILWAY MAL GODOWN) PO- SASARAM,DISTT-ROHTAS
6. AJAY KUMAR SINGH S/O KAPILDEO SINGH R/O BERMA, SEAM
CHANCHANI BUNGLOW PO- BERMO, DISTT. BOKARO
7. ANIL KUMAR SINGH S/O DAROGA ROY, R/O AT & PO- AKORHI
BAZAR VAI DALMIA NAGAR SASARAM DISTT- ROHTAS
8. SUDHIR KUMAR SINGH S/O JAGDEEP SINGHR/O FLAT NO. 219,
RAJBANSHI NAGAR PS- SHASHTRI NAGAR, DISTT-PATNA
9. PRADHAN SHYAM SUNDAR PD. S/O PRADHAN CHANDRAMA PD. R/O
MOHALL GAJRAR (GOURAKSHANI) PO- SASARAM DISTT- ROHTAS
10. ARVIND KUMAR S/O J.B. SHARMA ROY (DGM) R/O BTPS COLONY
QR. NO.B/5 BEGUSARAI DISTT- BEGUSARAI
11. ANIL KUMAR SINGH S/O JAGANNATH SINGH R/O FLAT NO. 5/56,
WEAKER SECTION KANKARBAGH PS- KANKARBAGH, DISTT- PATNA
12. MANOJ KUMAR KASHYAP S/O PREM RAM SARRF, R/O CHOWK
BAZAR, SASARAM DISTT-ROHTAS
13. ARVIND KUMAR SINGH S/O RAJESHWAR PD. SINGH (RETD.S.E.)
R/O GANDHI NAGAR WEST BORING ROAD, DISTT- PATNA
14. ARZOO AKBAR USMANI S/O Z.A.USMANI, R/O SULTANGANJ, PO-
MAHENDRU DISTT- PATNA
-3-
15. ABHAY KUMAR DUTT VERMA S/O ANIRUDH KUMAR DUTT VERMA R/O
ROAD NO. 1/D, ASHOK NAGAR KANKARBAGH, PATNA
16. SUMAN KUMAR SINGH S/O RAM NARESH SINGH R/O VILL-
BHUSAHULA PO- & PS DARIHAT DISTT- ROHTAS
17. ARUN KUMAR SINGH S/O SURAJ DAYAL SINGH R/O CLUB ROAD,
AURANGABAD DISTT- AURANGABAD.
18. PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH S/O RAM BILAS SINGH VILL-SUHI PO-
MALHARA PS- DEO, DISTT- AURANGABAD
19. DHIRENDRA KUMAR SINGH S/O SARYU PD. SINGH R/O SARYU
BHAWAN ,NEW AREA MAHARAJGANJ ROAD, DISTT- AURANGABAD
20. MAHENDRA KUMAR PATHAK S/O SHAMBHU NATH PATHAK, JAGDISH
BHAWAN CLUB ROAD, AURANGABAD———PETITIONERS
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS (THE RESPONDENTS ARE THE SAME
AS IN CWJC. NO. 4942/99)
with
CWJC No.5584 of 1998
1. PRAMOD KUMAR S/O LATE JUGESHWASR PD. SINHA C/O DR. VIJAY
KUMAR, R/O MOHALL MAUNA KATAHARIBAGH ROAD PO- CHAPRA PS-
CHAPRAA TOWN, DISTT. SARAN
2. RAMESH KUMAR S/O VIDYADHAR MISHRA QR. NO. 274 ROAD NO.4
RAJBANSHI NAGAR PATNA. PERMANENT ADDRESS C/O RAJ KANT
MISHRA VILL- & PO- NARAITHA DISTT- DARBHANGA
3. ANIL KUMAR S/O SIDH NATH SINGH KALAMUNCH BAKERGANJ
BEHIND RUPAK CINEMA, PATNA
4. REJEEV RANJAN KUMAR S/O LATE ARJUN PD. SHARMA,
SHEIKHPURA (BRAHASTHAN) P.O.B.V. COLLEGE, PATNA
5. KUMAR ANIL PRAKASH S/O PARASHU RAM SHARMA MOHALL PRAKASH
NIKETAN HORILGANJ, JEHANABAD COURT DISTT- JEHANABAD
6. SUNIL KUMAR SINGH S/O R.P.SINGH( RETD E.O) VIJAY NAGAR,
RUKANPURA LANE NO.1 HOUSE OFSHRI S.P.SINGH( BANK
MANAGER) P.O B.V. COLLEGE,PATNA-14
7. RABINDRA KUMAR S/O SHITAL PD. SINHA WEST LOHANIPUR PS-
KADAMKUAN, PATNA-13————–PETITIONERS
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS (RESPONDENTS ARE THE SAME AS IN
CWJC. NO.4942 OF 99)
———–
For the Petitioners: Mr. Ganesh Pd. Singh,Sr. Advocate
(In CWJC No.4942/99) Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate
For the Petitioner: Mr. Md. Fazal Rahman, Advocate
(In CWJC No.6253/99)
For the Petitioners: Mr. Rajendra Pd. Singh,Sr.Advocate
(in CWJC No.1390/98) Mr. Rajeev kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Navjot Yeshu,Advocate
For the State: Mr. S.K. Ghose, AAG-2
Mr. N.K.Sinha, Advocate
For BPSC Mrs. Nilu Agrawal, Advocate
(In all the cases)
————
P R E S E N T
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI
*****
A.K.Tripathi,J All the writ applications have been heard together
because they had been admitted and clubbed together for hearing as
-4-
common bundle of facts and questions of law have emerged or were
pressed by various counsels representing the petitioners at the
relevant time. It is in this background all these matters have been
heard together and are also being disposed of by this common
judgment.
All these petitioners are claimants and desired
appointment on the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the Road
Construction Department, Government of Bihar. They all claimed
that they have the requisite experience by virtue of training they had
undergone as apprentice in various recognized institutions. Their
right for appointment to the post irrespective of the terms and
conditions laid down in Advertisement No. 128 of 1996 flows from a
decision which was rendered in the case of U.P State Road
Construction & Another vrs. U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs
Berozgar Sangh & Others ( 1995) 2 SCC 1.
In the above decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
while dealing with the provisions of Apprenticeship Act, the Apex
Court was of the opinion that all such apprentices who had
undergone training acquired skill as well as consumed public time
and money ought to be engaged by the State authority on the basis of
certain parameters laid down in paragraph-12 of the said decision.
The decision of the Apex Court was rendered in a case originating
from the State of Uttar Pradesh and in relation to a Public Sector
Undertaking, namely, the Road Transport Corporation Uttar Pradesh.
Taking queue from the said decision the
-5-
advertisement issued by the Bihar Public Service Commission,
namely, Advertisement No. 128 of 1996 was sought to be challenged
in all these writ applications filed in the years 1998 and 99.
According to the petitioners the advertisement did not provide for
any kind of concession for the apprentice engineers and they were
clubbed with the rest, for appointment, which would be in breach of
the decision of the Apex Court. They desires that a fresh
advertisement be issued making provision for them or corrigendum
be issued accommodating the interest of these petitioners in the said
recruitment drive. It is also recorded that majority of these petitioners
did not even apply pursuant to the Advertisement No. 128 of 1996.
The primary submission made on behalf of most of
these petitioners that the law having been settled with regard to the
right of these apprentices by virtue of the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, the State of Bihar had an obligation to accommodate
these petitioners. The advertisement which was issued for
recruitment, being contrary to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, ought to be quashed straightway. As it was not done the
petitioners were compelled to move the High Court by filing several
writ applications.
Another aspect which has been pointed out to Court
is that after 1996 advertisement yet another advertisement which is
Advertisement No. 25 of 1999 was issued and even that became a
subject matter in some other writ applications. On the basis of the
intervention of this Court the respondent authority issued a
-6-
corrigendum indicating that the apprentices would be given
preference and if age comes in their way a kind of waiver too will be
extended.
The current position is that the appointments have
already been made both with regard to 1996 advertisement as well as
1999 advertisement. These appointments have come to be made, as I
am informed, sometime in the year 2002 and 2004 on the
intervention of the Court.
But the question which is required to be answered
in these writ applications is whether any kind of right subsists in
favour of the petitioners at such a belated stage after more than 14
years when the advertisement was issued.
The stand of the respondent State authority is that no
direction can be issued by the Court at this stage for making
appointment since recruitments have already been carried out on the
basis of the advertisement issued in the year 1996 and 1999. Giving
any direction now to the respondent to quash the said advertisements,
undo the appointments already made on the basis of the said
advertisements would not only unsettle settled things where large
number of persons have been appointed and have acquired a right. It
would also amount to putting the clock back and turn the pages of
history back by a decade and a half.
Yet another aspect which has been pointed out by
learned Additional Advocate General-2 is that the appointments to
the post came to be made in terms of the notification dated 31.7.2004
-7-
issued by the State Government which is annexure-D to the counter
affidavit filed in CWJC No. 4942 of 1999. This notification was
based on a direction of the Division Bench which is annexure-C to
the said counter affidavit. The people have already filled up the posts
and are working for many years. Now it will not be in the interest of
things to even remotely consider their cases on the basis of the
decision of the Apex Court for the advertisement of 1996.
It is also pointed out that most of these petitioners
want direction for appointment on the basis of relaxation given in the
1999 advertisement which was based on a judicial decision. Even
otherwise all of them are more near the age of superannuation rather
than fit for consideration for appointment.
In the totality therefore the facts being what they are,
this Court is unable to grant any relief to these petitioners in the
above stated circumstances, as the relief can accrue to a litigant only
provided it does not unsettle the settled position. There has to be
some co-relation between the time frame when a relief was prayed
and it could be given or ought to be given. These writ applications
are now more academic in nature and no substantive relief can
accrue to them when the whole exercise was completed and issue put
to rest.
These writ applications have not merit and they are
dismissed but without any costs.
Patna High Court, Patna (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)
Dated the 29th June,2010
NAFR./RPS/Sr.Secy