Patna HC Directs Jehanabad DM To Consider Adjustment Claim Of Executive Assistant Discontinued As Beyond Sanctioned Strength, If Vacancy Exists

The petitioner was appointed as an Executive Assistant by the Bihar Administrative Reforms Mission Society and posted to the office of the District Sub-Registrar, Jehanabad. Although his initial engagement was for one year, the contractual tenure was later extended, subject to the stated terms

On 11 September 2019, the Jehanabad SCORE Committee decided to discontinue his services on the ground that he was engaged beyond the sanctioned strength and applied the principle of “last come, first go”

The petitioner challenged that decision, contending that similarly situated operators had been reinstated or adjusted elsewhere and that the District Sub-Registrar had later sought additional computer operators

The State maintained that eight operators were required and eight sanctioned posts were available

The Court identified no specific statutory provision or precedent as the basis of its decision. It proceeded on the administrative principle that a claim for adjustment may be considered where an appropriate vacancy exists, in accordance with applicable rules and the practice followed for similarly situated employees

The Court also noted that BISCORE meeting minutes contemplated re-engagement of discontinued operators upon written request and subject to relevant requirements

The Court noted that no misconduct or deficiency in the petitioner’s performance had been alleged; his services had been discontinued because his engagement was said to exceed the sanctioned strength

It also considered evidence that similarly situated operators had been reinstated or adjusted in other districts, and that BISCORE had contemplated re-engagement subject to requirements

In those circumstances, rather than ordering reinstatement, the Court directed the District Magistrate to assess the petitioner’s claim, including whether the district administration required his services and whether an appropriate vacancy was available

The District Magistrate was directed to consider and decide the claim within a further ten weeks.

If an appropriate vacancy existed and the petitioner’s services were required, his claim for adjustment was to be considered under the applicable rules and the practice followed for similarly situated employees