Directorate of Mines and Geology employees were ineligible for upgradation to Secretariat Personal Assistant posts.

The petitioner was appointed as a Stenographer in the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Bihar, by appointment memo dated 27 May 1988.

An agreement dated 10 November 1988 between the Government and the Association of Personal Assistants provided for upgrading eligible Stenographers/Typists working in the Secretariat or its allied offices before that date to the post of Personal Assistant.

The petitioner was recommended for such appointment and was upgraded as a Personal Assistant by Memo No. 154 dated 23 June 1995.

During the pendency of review proceedings, the petitioner’s upgradation was cancelled and he was reverted to the post of Stenographer by order dated 16 July 2005.

Pursuant to liberty granted in an earlier writ petition, the petitioner submitted a representation, which was rejected by Memo No. 9497 dated 20 August 2008.

Whether the petitioner, having been appointed as a Stenographer in the Directorate of Mines and Geology before 10 November 1988, was an employee of the Secretariat or its allied offices and therefore eligible for upgradation as a Personal Assistant under the agreement dated 10 November 1988.

Whether the State Government lawfully cancelled the petitioner’s upgradation and reverted him to the post of Stenographer by order dated 16 July 2005.

Whether the judgment of the Jharkhand High Court in W.P.(S) No. 4317 of 2009 entitled the petitioner to similar relief.

The Court applied the terms of the agreement dated 10 November 1988, under which only Stenographers/Typists working in the Secretariat or its allied offices before the stipulated date could be upgraded as Personal Assistants.

It relied on the notification dated 28 May 1992 issued by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, which identified the departments and attached offices forming part of the Secretariat and its allied offices; the Directorate of Mines and Geology was not included in that list.

The Court treated the competent department’s notification as determinative of the scope of the Secretariat and its allied offices.

It further held that the Jharkhand High Court decision, having been rendered without consideration of the 28 May 1992 notification and principally on the basis of an RTI communication, was not applicable to the petitioner’s case.

Although the petitioner had been appointed before 10 November 1988, the relevant eligibility condition was not merely prior appointment as a Stenographer; the appointment had to be in the Secretariat or its allied offices.

The Court found that the petitioner was appointed in the Directorate of Mines and Geology and that the authoritative notification dated 28 May 1992 did not include that Directorate within the Secretariat or its allied offices.

Accordingly, the petitioner did not satisfy the essential condition for upgradation under the 1988 agreement.

The Court rejected reliance on the Jharkhand High Court judgment because that decision had not considered the 1992 notification and had proceeded on the basis of an RTI response issued by the Mines and Geology Department.

Since the original upgradation was held to be legally unwarranted, its withdrawal and the petitioner’s reversion to the post of Stenographer were upheld.

The cancellation of his upgradation and reversion order dated 16 July 2005 were therefore upheld.

The writ petition was dismissed for want of merit, and any pending applications were also disposed of.