IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A.No. 226 of 2011
Jharkhand State Electricity Board & Ors Appellants
Versus
Ghasi Ram Sardar & Ors ... ... ... ... Respondent
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. P. BHATT
------
For the Appellants : Mr. V.P.Singh, Sr. Advocate &
Mrs. I.Sen Choudhary, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Delip Jairath & Abhinesh Kumar,
Advocates
——
Order No. 09 Dated 7th September, 2011
Heard the parties.
2. The appellants are aggrieved against that part of the
judgment delivered in a bunch of the writ petitions decided
by judgment dated 30/03/11 whereby respondents’
appointments have been protected.
3. The appellants’ contention is that as per the Service
Rules governing the services of the employees of the
Jharkhand State Electricity Board, there is no cadre post
of the Assistant Engineer (IT) and, therefore, merely
because advertisement was issued by the Board inviting
application from the candidates having qualification of
Graduate in Information Technology cannot create right in
favour of those incumbent merely because of the fact that
they succeeded to get through in that process of selection.
It is submitted that any appointment in the cadre of the
services of the employees in the Jharkhand State Electricity
Board could have been given provided that post would have
been in the cadre.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that
the Board itself took a decision to offer appointment to the
I.T. Graduates in Engineering on the post of Assistant
Engineer (IT). The need of these technical persons is
admitted by the Board and not only this, the Board itself
subsequently has included the post of Assistant Engineer
(IT) in the cadre post as stated by counsel for the Board
today with the help of resolution of the Board’s 82nd
meeting dated 19.11.2010. It is also submitted that after
filing of the writ petition and when the Court already
passed the order that any appointment given in pursuance
of any subsequent advertisement, will be subject to the
decision of the writ petition, even then the Board has given
appointment to other persons selected by the same process
of selection and that too without there being any Rules for
appointment for the post of Assistant Engineer (IT) thereby
the Board which itself has selected the candidates for
appointment on the post of Assistant Engineer (IT) by a
process, want to replace the selected candidates on the
basis of the same process by giving appointment of the
same nature. It is submitted that the appointees appointed
by one mode cannot be removed by giving appointment to
other persons by same mode taking the plea that they have
selected other persons to replace earlier selected persons.
5. We have considered the submissions of the learned
counsel for the parties and since the facts are not in
dispute, we need not to go in detail of the facts except that
the services in the Jharkhand State Electricity board are
governed by the Rules framed by the Board which are
known as Service regulation, 1976; Electrical Engineer
(General) Cadre Rules, 1976; Civil Engineers Cadre Rules,
1976; Recruitment Promotion and Cadre Rule for the
Subordinate Accounts Service; The Bihar State Electricity
Board (Generation-cum-Transmission Cadre) Rules, 1976
and The Bihar State Electricity Board Junior Engineers
(Generation-cum-Transmission Cadre) Regulations, 1976. It
is not in dispute that post of the Assistant Engineer (IT) is
not a cadre post in the definition given in the relevant
Rules and particularly Rule 5 of the Bihar State Electricity
Board (Generation-cum-Transmission Cadre) Rules, 1976
and not within the cadre as given in Rule 6. Therefore, the
appointment of any person selected for the post which is
not the cadre post cannot be treated to be an appointment
in the cadre and can be treated to be ex-cadre post
appointment. In facts situation where the Board itself has
admitted that there is need of such technical persons in
service and the need of the Board for these technical
persons has further fortified by the Resolution taken in the
Board’s 82nd meeting dated 19.11.2010 whereby such
posts have been included in the cadre post. However, even
after including the said post as cadre post vide Resolution
dated 19.11.2010, the Rules yet have not been framed and
as per resolution dated 19.11.2010, copy of which has been
provided by the learned counsel for the Board, read with
Board’s order in Agenda No. 694/2010-11, only it has been
proposed that now the Rules may be framed obviously,
prescribing educational and further requirements for
giving regular appointment in the cadre. In view of the
above reasons, by subsequent advertisement, if any
appointment is given, that appointment is also only without
there being any Rule. Therefore, the respondents who have
been selected by the appellant Board for appointment,
though as ex-cadre employee, sought to be replaced by
another set of ex-cadre employee and not by regularly
selected employees which is impermissible and, therefore,
on this count also, we do not find any reason to interfere in
the impugned order .
6. Therefore, the L.P.A. preferred by the Board, having
no merit, is dismissed.
(Prakash Tatia, A.C.J.)
(P. P. Bhatt, J)
Raman/Birendra