Rajendra Agriculture ... vs Dr. Anil Kumar Singh And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 5308 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                        Letters Patent Appeal No.1051 of 2018
                                          In
                    Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9063 of 2016
     ======================================================

1. Rajendra Agriculture University, through the Registrar, Pusa, Samastipur, Bihar (Now converted as Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University, Pusa, Samastipur).

2. Vice Chancellor, Rajendra Agricultural University, Pusa, Samastipur, Bihar.

(Now converted as Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University, Pusa, Samastipur).

3. The Director Administration, Rajendra Agricultural University, Pusa, Samastipur, Bihar.(Now converted as Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University, Pusa, Samastipur).

4. The Officer-in-Charge Recruitment, Rajendra Agricultural University, Pusa, Samastipur, (Now converted as Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University, Pusa, Samastipur).

... ... Appellant/s Versus

1. Dr. Anil Kumar Singh Son of Late Ramashray Singh, resident of Village Post -Sherpur, Via- Vidyapati Nagar, P.S. Vidyapati Nagar, District- Samastipur.

2. The State of Bihar, through the Agricultural Production Commissioner, New Secretariat, Patna, Bihar

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. D.K. Sinha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Chandra Mohan Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Chaudhary, Sr. Advocate Mr. Bhola Kumar, Advocate Mr. Akshansh Ankit, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)

Date : 19-12-2022 Learned counsel for the appellants furnished

supplementary affidavit on behalf of the appellants. The same is

taken on record. The appellants-University have questioned the Patna High Court L.P.A No.1051 of 2018 dt.19-12-2022

validity of the order dated 14.05.2018 passed in CWJC No. 9063

of 2016 passed by the learned Single Judge.

Respondent was an employee of the appellants-

University and he was holder of the post of Training Associate it

has been re-designated as Subject Matter Specialist. While he was

working as such, the University issued advertisement No. 03 of

2012 dated 08.10.2012 inviting application from the eligible

candidate (direct recruitment) to the post of Programme

Coordinator. He has submitted his application on 07.11.2012.

Among others he was subjected to interview on 12.08.2014.

Respondent name was not considered for selection and

appointment to the post of Programme Co-ordinator only on the

sole ground that while he was working as Subject Matter Specialist

he was facing departmental inquiry it was concluded in imposition

of penalty of censure under the Bihar Government Servant

(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005.

Learned counsel for the appellant relied on Bihar

Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,

2005 which is not the correct Rules. The correct Rules is Bihar

Agricultural University Act, 1987. In this there is no prohibition

for an University employee to participate for the direct recruitment

to the post of Programme Co-ordinator.

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1051 of 2018 dt.19-12-2022

The respondent feeling aggrieved by the non-selection to

the post of Programme Co-ordinator invoke Article 226 of the

Constitutions and filed CWJC No. 9063 of 2016. Learned Single

Judge passed order in his favour hence present appeal by the

University.

Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently

contended that the learned Single Judge has committed error in not

appreciating that respondent was facing departmental inquiry and

it was concluded in imposition of penalty of censure during the

intervening period from the date of advertisement dated

08.10.2012 to 16.01.2016.

Having regard to the conduct of the respondent he is not

entitled to participate in the process of selection and appointment

to the post of Programme Co-ordintor as direct recruitee. Such

contention has not been appreciated by the learned Single Judge

hence the present appeal.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent resisted

the aforesaid contentions and submitted that no doubt respondent

was an employee of the appellants-University as a Subject Matter

Specialist and he was facing departmental inquiry and he was

punished with cenusre penalty. The same was not come in the way

of direct recruitee to the post of Programme Co-ordinator. In this Patna High Court L.P.A No.1051 of 2018 dt.19-12-2022

regard, there is no material information like statute or executive

order or policy decision of the University to deny participation in

the process of selection to the post of Programme Co-ordinator

(direct recruitment) therefore denial of his candidature for the

aforesaid post is incorrect. The same has been taken note of and

appreciated by the learned Single Judge.

Heard learned counsels for the respective parties.

Core issue involved in the present appeal is whether LPA

Bench could interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge or

not and what relief. Respondent was an employee of appellants-

University he had faced departmental inquiry and it was concluded

in imposition of censure penalty on 16.12.2016. Whether the

aforesaid punishment would be a hurdle for his selection and

appointment to the post of Programme Co-ordinator as direct

recruitee or not?

Perusal of the records, it is evident that there is no

provision prohibiting an employee of the University to participate

in the process of selection and appointment to the post of

Programme Co-ordinator as direct recruitee, if he was punished in

a departmental inquiry. In the absence of statute or executive order

or policy decision of the University that an employee is not

entitled to participate in the process of direct recruitment to the Patna High Court L.P.A No.1051 of 2018 dt.19-12-2022

post of Programme Co-ordinator if he is punished in a

departmental proceedings, we find there is no infirmity in the

order dated 14.05.2018 passed in CWJC No. 9063 of 2016 by the

learned Single Judge. Hence, no interference is called for.

Accordingly, the present Letters Patent Appeal stands

dismissed.

(P. B. Bajanthri, J)

(Purnendu Singh, J) Vikash/-

AFR/NAFR                  NAFR
CAV DATE                  N/A
Uploading Date
Transmission Date         N/a