New Delhi (ILNS): The Supreme Court has quashed an order of Bihar Administrative Service by which it had relegated a service of an employee after 15 years to Bihar Education Service without offering an opportunity for hearing & against the order of Apex Court itself.
The petitioner (Subhash Kumar) in the year 2001 had appeared for the Combined Competitive Examination and on being successful was selected for the appointment into Bihar Administrative Service in the year 2005. After the successful probation period, he becomes a substantive member of Bihar Administrative Service (BAS).
In the case background, one of the unsuccessful candidates (Baldeo Choudhary) in the said competitive exam had filed an appeal in the Patna High Court. The Single judge of the High Court in year 2012 allowed the appeal by holding an error in the evaluation of his answer script of Paper-II General Studies.
It may be noted that none of the selected candidates including the present petitioner (Subhash Kumar) who on their selection, being appointed and became member of Bihar Administrative Service, were impleaded as a party to the writ petition.
After that, the commission had challenged that order in LPA, in the High Court wherein the Division bench of the High Court had directed
“in the event after declaring the result as directed by the learned single judge, the writ petitioner, on account of his placement in the select list becomes entitled to appointment in a particular service: the writ petitioner will not be entitled to retrospective benefit. In other words, the writ petitioner will take seniority and other service benefits from the date of his appointment and not from any earlier date.”
That particular order of the High Court given by Division Bench was challenged by the State Government in the Supreme Court wherein the Apex Court by its order dated 23/10/2019 had upheld the order passed by High Court and clarified that it remained restricted to the placement of original writ petitioner (Baldeo Choudhary) who was aggrieved of his own rights in reference to alleged error which had been committed in proper evaluation of his answer script for his placement in the select list published by the commission pursuant to which the appointments were made in reference to an advertisement dated 29th December, 2001. Taking note of the apprehension of the commission the Supreme Court had clarified that the appointment pursuant to a judgment of the Division Bench of the high court has to be offered to the writ petitioner (Baldeo Choudhary) w.e.f. 29/11/2012 (the date of the judgment) 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.
But the commission in guise of the order dated 13/10/2019 has revised the recommendations of the 45th Combined Competitive Examination held pursuant to an advertisement dated 29th December 2001 and forwarded it to the Government of Bihar, Patna vide letter dated 4th May, 2020 while placing the original writ petitioner (Baldeo Choudhary) in the revised recommendations at SI, No 2 and displacing the petitioner relegating his placement from Bihar Administrative Service to Bihar Education Service.
In furtherance thereof, the State Government has relegated the employment of the petitioner stating it to be in compliance of the orders passed by the Supreme Court. The same has been challenged in the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court has held,
“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 recommended by the commission in reference to 45th 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 Court dated 23rd October, 2019.”
Also Read: Vice-Chancellors: Caught between accountability and autonomy
It further stated, “we find justification in what being contended by the 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 consequences and indeed the order impugned dated 23rd July, 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.”