Statutory dissolution cannot justify cadre downgrading; employees must retain posts held immediately before dissolution.

The petitioners were employees of the erstwhile Bihar Intermediate Education Council (“the Council”). Several petitioners were initially appointed or regularised as Class-IV employees and were subsequently promoted or adjusted to the posts of Assistant, Assistant-cum-Typist, Routine Clerk, Section Officer, Personal Assistant, Assistant Secretary or Deputy Secretary, depending on the case.

The Council was abolished under the Bihar Intermediate Education Council (Repeal) Act, 2007, and its assets, liabilities and functions were transferred to the Bihar School Examination Board (“the Board”).

Pursuant to the State Government’s resolution dated 12 July 2012 concerning adjustment of the Council’s employees, the Board constituted committees to determine the posts on which the employees would be absorbed.

The petitioners objected to their proposed absorption on lower posts, contending that they were entitled to absorption on the posts they held in the Council immediately before its dissolution. Despite their objections, some were absorbed as Lower Division Clerks or Orderly Peons, while others were denied absorption as Routine Clerks or were reverted from higher posts.

The Board defended its action on the grounds that the relevant posts were not sanctioned or available and that certain promotions had been made without Government approval or contrary to the prescribed qualifications.

The petitioners relied on earlier decisions in CWJC No. 18473 of 2012, affirmed in LPA No. 658 of 2013 and by the Supreme Court, as well as CWJC No. 8083 of 2013, which had granted relief to similarly situated employees.

Whether the Board could absorb or adjust employees of the abolished Council on posts lower than those held by them on the date of the Council’s dissolution, on the ground that corresponding sanctioned posts were unavailable?

Whether the impugned orders reverting or absorbing the petitioners on lower posts were sustainable despite the earlier judgments granting similarly situated employees absorption on the posts held by them in the Council?

Whether the petitioners were entitled to consequential service benefits attached to their respective posts from the date on which the Council was abolished and its functions were transferred to the Board?

The Court applied Section 3 of the Bihar Intermediate Education Council (Repeal) Act, 2007, particularly Section 3(2), which contemplated a mechanism for adjustment of the Council’s officers and employees after abolition of the Council.

It also considered Section 4 of the Repeal Act, under which the assets and liabilities of the Council stood transferred to and vested in the Bihar School Examination Board.

The Court relied on the State Government’s resolution dated 12 July 2012, issued pursuant to the statutory transition, governing adjustment and absorption of the Council’s employees.

The Court further applied the doctrine of judicial consistency and binding finality of precedent, relying on the earlier decision in CWJC No. 18473 of 2012, affirmed in LPA No. 658 of 2013 and by the Supreme Court, and the coordinate Bench decision in CWJC No. 8083 of 2013, which held that similarly situated employees could not be removed from the posts they held in the Council before its abolition merely because of alleged non-availability of corresponding posts in the Board.

The Court found that the petitioners had been working in various posts in the Council before its abolition and that their cases were materially similar to those already decided in favour of other Council employees.

The Board’s justification based on lack of sanctioned posts had already been considered and rejected in the earlier judgments.

The Court held that the Board could not use its own assessment of available vacancies or sanctioned strength to absorb employees of the dissolved Council on lower posts when the governing transition scheme and the binding precedent required protection of the posts held by them immediately before dissolution.

Since the earlier decisions had attained finality and were directly applicable, the Court declined to reconsider the same objections concerning the validity of appointments, promotions or sanction of posts.

The impugned absorption and reversion orders were therefore held unsustainable.

The order dated 12 September 2012, insofar as it affected the petitioners, was quashed.

The Bihar School Examination Board and its authorities were directed to adjust or absorb each petitioner on the post held by that petitioner in the erstwhile Council on the date of its dissolution, and to grant the consequential benefits of that post from the date on which the Council was abolished and its functions were transferred to the Board.

The entire exercise was directed to be completed within two months from the date of the judgment.