SUBHASH KUMAR vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

        NON­REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION(CIVIL) NO(S). 798 OF 2020 SUBHASH KUMAR ...Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.      ...Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T Rastogi, J. rd The instant petition is directed against the order dated 23 July,   2020   passed   by   the   first   respondent   relegating   the petitioner after serving as member of the Bihar Administrative service for almost 15 years to Bihar Education Service without affording   an   opportunity   of   hearing   to   him   in   alleged rd compliance of the order of this Court stated 23  October 2019 Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by GEETA AHUJA Date: 2020.11.17 17:49:34 IST Reason: in Civil Appeal No. 3307 of 2015 left with no option with the petitioner to approach this Court for redressal of his grievance. 1 2. The brief facts of the case led to filing of this petition are that Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to th as the “Commission”) published an advertisement dated 29 December, 2001 in various newspapers inviting applications th from   eligible   candidates   for   conducting   the   45   Combined Competitive  Examination.   The  petitioner   had  participated  in the selection process and after being finally selected and as per his placement in the order of merit, was appointed into Bihar st Administrative Service vide order dated 21   March, 2005 and after   successful   period   of   probation,   became   a   substantive member of Bihar Administrative Service (BAS). 3. Shri   Baldeo   Choudhary   (respondent   no.   5)   had   also th participated   along   with   the   petitioner   in   the   45   Combined Competitive Examination held by the Commission pursuant to th an   advertisement   dated   29   December   2001,   could   not succeeded in fulfilling his wishes to become a member of Bihar Administrative Service.  He challenged his unsuitability held by 2 the Commission after almost four years of the process attain finality by filing a writ petition before the High Court of Patna in   the   year   2008   and   finally   succeeded   in   persuading   the th learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 19  March, 2012 in holding that an error has been committed by the Commission in evaluation of his answer script of Paper­II General Studies. It may be noted that none of the selected candidates including the present petitioner who on their selection, being appointed and   became   member   of   Bihar   Administrative   Service,   were impleaded as a party to the writ petition.  th 4. The order of the learned Single Judge dated 19   March, 2012 was  the  subject  matter  of   challenge  in  Letters   Patent Appeal filed at the instance of the Commission which came to th be decided vide judgment dated 29   November 2012 wherein the Division Bench of the High Court of Patna moulded the relief granted by the learned Single Judge under its order dated th 19   March,   2012.     The   relevant   extract   is   reproduced hereunder:­ 3

4

5 (i.e. date  of   Judgment  of  the   Division   Bench)   with  notional benefits of service such as continuity of service, increment, etc. as he was already in service, no salary for the interregnum period be awarded to him. 6. The   Commission   under   the   guise   of   the   order   of   this rd Court dated 23  October, 2019 revised the recommendations of th 45   Combined Competitive Examination held pursuant to an th advertisement dated 29  December, 2001 and forwarded it to th the Government of Bihar, Patna vide letter dated 4  May, 2020 while placing the original writ petitioner (Baldeo Choudhary) in the revised recommendations at Sl. No. 2 and displacing the petitioner relegating his placement from Bihar Administrative Service to Bihar Education Service. In furtherance thereof, the rd State Government vide its order dated 23  July, 2020 relegated the   petitioner   to   Bihar   Education   Service   on   a   justification being tendered that action has been taken in compliance of the rd order of this Court dated 23  October, 2019 which is a subject matter of   challenge  at  the   instance   of  the   petitioner  in  the instant proceedings. 6 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has no demur regarding appointment of Baldeo Choudhary who has finally succeeded in his own rights on dismissal of the appeal preferred by the Commission before this Court in Civil Appeal No.3307 of 2015 but he is aggrieved of relegating his cadre from Bihar Administrative Service to Bihar Education Service after he had rendered almost 15 years’ of service who was neither arrayed as a party to the writ petition nor been heard at any stage, is in violation of the principles of natural justice and in disregard of rd the order of this Court dated 23  October, 2019. 8. Learned counsel further submits that this Court under its rd order   dated   23   October,   2019   confined   consideration   for th appointment of Baldeo Choudhary in his own rights w.e.f. 29 November,   2012   but   the   directions   of   this   Court   have   been completely   misread   by   the   authorities   and   the   wholesome revision of the merit list has been undertaken by the Commission rd which was never intended by this Court in its order dated 23 7 October, 2019 disturbing the cadre allotment of the persons who were selected on the recommendation made by the Commission th held pursuant to an advertisement dated 29   December, 2001 and rightly so, since none of them was arrayed as party to the writ   petition   nor   been   heard   and     further   submits   that overturning the select list after 15 years and passing of an order rd dated 23  July, 2020 having adverse civil consequences without hearing the person is indeed in violation of principles of natural Justice and such action of the respondents in the given facts and circumstances at least qua the petitioner is not sustainable in law. 9. Per   contra,   learned   counsel   for   the   respondents,   while supporting the order impugned, submits that the commission has no option but to revise the select list in compliance of the rd order of this Court dated 23  October, 2019 after placing Baldeo Choudhary at his place in the order of merit and in consequence, the   petitioner   being   last   in   the   open   category   in   Bihar Administrative   Service,   rightly   relegated   from   Bihar Administrative   Service   to   Bihar   Education   Service   vide   order 8 rd dated 23   July, 2020 and submits that their action being in compliance of the order of this Court needs no interference. 10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the material available on record. 11. This   Court   was   conscious   of   the   fact   that   although   the th Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   in   its   judgment   dated   29 November, 2012 moulded the relief confined to the writ petitioner Baldeo Choudhary as his case is s ui generis,  disturbing the select list   which   was   recommended   by   the   Commission   of   the th candidates   who   had   participated   in   the   45   Combined Competitive   Examination   held   pursuant   to   an   advertisement th dated 29   December, 2001 after serving for almost 15 years in their respective cadre assigned by the State Government will not be in the interest of justice.   But as the Commission had an apprehension in implementing order of the Division Bench dated th 29  November, 2012, this Court ruled out the apprehension and 9 rd made a further clarification under its order dated 23   October, 2019. 12. In   the   given   circumstances,   what   was   required   for   the respondents was to place the writ petitioner (Baldeo Choudhary) at   the   appropriate   place   in   the   select   list   which   was th recommended by the Commission in reference to 45  Combined Competitive Examination and to be considered for appointment to a particular service to whom he was suitable as per his revised placement   in   the   select  list   with   seniority   and   other   notional benefits of service including continuity of service, increment, etc., to which he was entitled for in compliance of the order of this rd Court dated    23  October, 2019. 13. We find justification in what being contended by learned counsel for the petitioner to hold that relegating the petitioner to Bihar Education Service after he had rendered 15 years of service as member of the Bihar Administrative Service entail adverse civil rd consequences and indeed the order impugned dated 23   July, 10 2020 could not have been passed by the respondents without affording him an opportunity of hearing and is in violation of the principles of natural justice. 14. The defence which has been tendered by the respondents in their counter affidavit that impugned action has been taken in rd compliance of the order of this Court dated 23   October, 2019 which in our view is completely misplaced and this Court under rd its order dated 23  October, 2019, left no manner of doubt in its implementation   and   there   was   no   justification   left   for   the th Commission to hold an exercise and revise the select list of 45 Combined   Competitive   Examination   held   pursuant   to   the th advertisement   dated   29   December,   2001   and   acted   upon   in 2005 after a lapse of 15 years at the same time the case of Baldeo Choudhary   being   sui   generis   was   to   be   considered   for th appointment w.e.f. 29   November, 2012 in terms of the revised recommendations   made   by   the   Commission   qua   him   without disturbing   the   cadre/seniority   of   the   persons   including   the petitioner   in   Bihar   Administrative   Service   to   which   he   was otherwise entitled for in compliance of the order of this Court 11

12