IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.10555 of 2010
1. Krishna Kumar S/O Sri Anit Ram Class-Iv Employees In Civil
Court At Aurangabad, Distt.- Aurangabad
Versus
1. The Patna High Court, Patna Through Registrar General, Patna
High Court, Patna
2. The District Judge, Aurangabad
-----------
For the Petitioner:- Mr. Rajendra Kumar Singh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Onkar Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Navjot Yeshu, Adv.
For the High Court:- Mr. Chittaranjan Singh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Binodanand Mishra, Adv.
For the State:- Mr. Ashok Kr. Gupta, Adv.
————-
3. 08.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
the Court.
The petitioner is a Class-IV employee in the
Civil Court at Aurangabad aggrieved by denial of
promotion to a Class-III post in pursuance of a
process of selection held against the promotional
quota. No counter affidavit had been filed since
July, 2010. Rather than to have kept the matter
pending for that purpose the Court requested the
counsel for the Court to place the original records
itself so that if possible the matter may be disposed
off. The original records have been placed before the
Court during submissions.
The fact of the matter is that the petitioner
has secured 43.25 marks in the written examination.
The counter affidavit of the Registrar in the
judgeship of Aurangabad states that the qualifying
2
marks fixed for reserved category candidates, to
which the petitioner also belongs, was fixed at 40 by
the appointment committee as distinct from 45
meant for general category candidates. His name
was recommended to the Court which did not
approve and observed that the petitioner may again
appear in the ensuing examination after six months.
The Bihar Civil Court Staff (Class-III &
Class-IV) (Amendment) Rules, 2001 visualizes
appointment on Class-III post both by direct
recruitment and by promotion. The procedure for
direct recruitment is provided for in Rule -5. The
procedure for appointment by promotion is provided
for in Rule-6. 20% of Class-III vacancies have to be
kept reserved for promotion from Class-IV. A
separate examination for appointment against the
promotional quota is required to be held.
Rule 5(d) regulating direct recruitment
provides for qualifying marks in the written
examination as 45%, but permits relaxation in case
of reserved category candidates. Rule 6 dealing with
promotional vacancies shall be governed by the same
qualifying marks in absence of any indication to the
contrary. But relaxation cannot be granted in
absence of any specific statutory provision.
3
The provisions of Rule 5(d) for relaxation in
the qualifying marks for reserved category
candidates applicable to the process of direct
recruitment cannot be imported into Rule-6 with
regard to promotional quota vacancies as the latter
contains no such provisions. On the contrary Rule
52 of the Bihar Civil Court Staff (Class-III & Class-IV)
Rules, 1992 specifically provides that the reservation
policy shall not be applicable in case of appointment
by promotion.
For the aforesaid reason the High Court did
not approve of the reduced relaxation in the
qualifying marks of the written examination to 40%
by the appointment committee with regard to the
promotional post. The Court finds no infirmity in
the same.
The application is dismissed.
P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)