IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.2302 of 2008
Shamim Khan, son of Late Khurshid Khan, village Domaria, PS Gardanibagh, district Patna -
Petitioner.
Vs.
1) The State of Bihar,
2) The Principal Secretary, cabinet Secretariat and Coordination Department, Bihar State
Archive, Bihar, Patna.
3) The Dy. Secretary to the Government of Bihar, Patna.
4) The Director, Archive, Bihar State Archives, Bailey Road, Patna.
5) The Assistant Director Archive, Bihar State Archives, Patna.
6) The Archivist, Bihar State Archives, Patna - Respondents.
...
For the petitioner: Mr. Gyan Shankar, Advocate.
For the State: Mr. Alok Kumar, AC to GA I.
3 29.3.2011 The petitioner was appointed as an Record Supplier on
4.12.1985 and confirmed on 14.9.1989. By Annexures 3, 4, 5 and
6, the petitioner was asked to work on different higher posts in
addition to his own duties. He was working as Despatch Clerk and
recently working as Accounts Clerk.
In this writ petition the petitioner prays that he may be
given promotion on the sanctioned posts of Record Clerk which
are lying vacant for several years.
The stand of the State is that the petitioner is not
entitled to promotion from the post of Record Supplier to the post
of Record Clerk, as there is no line of promotion in the aforesaid
cadre. It is also said that the petitioner was wrongly given
additional work. The order was passed illegally although it has not
been pointed out as to what was the illegality in allowing the
petitioner to work on officiating basis as Despatch Clerk or
Accounts Clerk. Lastly a stand has been taken that in 2000 certain
rules have been framed which envisage a particular mode of entry
2
to the post of Routine Clerks.
Counsel for the petitioner points out that several
persons have been promoted from the post of Record Supplier to
Record Clerks and has specifically mentioned the names of
Bindehswari Pd. Thakur who was promoted as a Routine Clerk on
12.5.1989 by the Director Archives, Raghubans Pd. Verma,
Bishnu Chandra Singh, Sri Vinay Kumar Singh and Bageshwari
Prasad. The orders of promotion are at Annexure 8 series to the
rejoinder. It has also been brought to the notice of the court that
one Surya Narain Datta and others had filed a writ petition
challenging the gradation list of Records Clerk issued on
13.1.1990. The challenge was that the respondents who were
Record Suppliers were included in the gradation list of Record
Clerks. It was argued that they belonged to a different cadre of the
Secretariat and were not entitled to be promoted on the said post.
This court did not find any reason to hold that the Record Supplier
would not be promoted to the post of Record Clerk, although it
was held that some of the respondents were wrongly shown to be
senior in the gradation list.
The fact remains that the petitioner has been working
as a Record Supplier since 1985 and if in the past certain persons
have been promoted from Record Supplier as Record Clerks, it
cannot be said that the petitioner would not be entitled to the said
promotion on the ground that the cadre is different or even on the
ground of 2000 Rules which envisages certain modes of
appointment / promotion on the post of Record Clerks.
3
Specifically with respect to the 2000 Rules this court has to say
that the rules would be applicable from the date on which it was
promulgated or from the date of its implementation. As far as the
case of the petitioner is concerned, it would depend on the date on
which the post fell vacant. Therefore, the petitioners would be
entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Routine
Clerk, as was been done in the past, with respect to persons
mentioned aforesaid, if the vacancies are prior to 2000.
I accordingly direct that respondent no.2 should take
into consideration the case of the petitioner and promote him to
the post of Routine Clerk as has been done with respect to others if
the vacancies that exist today are from before 2000.
This writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated
above.
haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)
