Patna High Court
Jyotish Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 5 March, 2024
Author: Harish Kumar
Bench: Chief Justice, Harish Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.299 of 2023
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20165 of 2018
======================================================
Jyotish Kumar Singh Son of Late Guneshwar Prasad Singh Resident of
Vilalge-Bhikhana, P.S. Rupauli District-Purnea.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through its Secretary, Personnel and Administrative
Department now Known as Department of General Administration,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Chairman, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Patna, P.O. Veterinary
College, Patna-14.
3. The Secretary, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Patna, P.O. Veterinary
College, Patna-14.
4. The Divisional Commissioner, Saharsa.
5. The District Magistrate, Supaul.
6. The District Development Commissioner, Supaul.
7. The Block development Officer, Raghopur, District-Supaul.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Abhay Shankar Jha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ghosarvai, AC to AAG-3
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR)
Date : 05-03-2024
Heard the parties.
2. By filing the present Letters Patent Appeal,
challenge is made to the order of the learned Single Judge dated
02.12.2022
, passed in CWJC No. 20165 of 2018, whereby the
writ petition came to be to dismissed.
3. The writ petitioner-appellant, herein, while
assailing the order of the writ Court contended that the case of
the writ petitioner was well covered by the judgment rendered
Patna High Court L.P.A No.299 of 2023 dt.05-03-2024
by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of the Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. Vs.
Umadevi and Ors., reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, as well as the
subsequent decision explaining the aforenoted case in State of
Karnataka and Ors. Vs. M. L. Kesari and Ors., [(2010) 9 SCC
247].
4. Learned Counsel for the appellant further argued
that the writ petitioner-appellant had been continuously working
for more than ten years against a vacant post of driver since
13.05.1985 on daily wage basis and, thus his case was to be
considered also in terms of resolution contained in Memo No.
639 dated 16.03.2006, however, the learned Single Judge failed
to appreciate the aforenoted facts.
5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties
and after careful consideration of the materials available on
record, admittedly, the petitioner-appellant has been working as
a daily wage basis, in the meantime, the Government of Bihar
had issued notification, incorporating the Bihar Vehicle Driver
Regulation, 2005 for appointment of driver under Class III post
to be done by the Staff Selection Commission on 30.11.2005.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.299 of 2023 dt.05-03-2024
Pursuant thereto, the District Magistrate, Supaul, vide its Letter
No. 14-1/Est. dated 08.11.2006 communicated the Bihar Staff
Selection Commission in relation to the vacancies for the post of
Jeep driver and further, the name of the petitioner-appellant
along with other candidates were also recommended vide Letter
No. 494-2/Est. dated 28.06.2007 along with other enclosures.
However, having found the petitioner-appellant did not have the
required qualification and he failed to submit the update driving
license, he was not found entitled to be appointed on Class III
post. So far as the claim of the petitioner based upon resolution
contained in Memo No. 639 dated 16.03.2006 is concerned,
having gone through the same it is manifest that any
appointment against the Class III post is to be done by the Bihar
Staff Selection Commission, Patna after passing of the
examination against the available vacancies is, inter alia, the
stipulation therein, which fact has duly been noted by the
learned Single Judge.
6. Now coming to the submissions of the petitioner-
appellant claiming his case to be covered under the judgment
rendered in the case of Uma Devi and M. L. Kesari (supra) is
Patna High Court L.P.A No.299 of 2023 dt.05-03-2024
concerned, the same is wholly misconceived. The Constitution
Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi
(supra) in no uncertain terms has held that the appointments
made without following the due process or the rules relating to
appointment did not confer any right on the appointees and the
Courts cannot direct their absorption, regularisation or re-
engagement nor make their service permanent, in exercise the
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
7. It is worth noting here that admittedly, the
petitioner-appellant was appointed as a daily wager not in terms
of any rules or adherence of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution and thus, treating the case of the petitioner to be
covered even under the exception, as has been duly observed in
paragraph 53 of the judgment of Uma Devi (supra), he cannot
get any benefit once having found he is not possessing eligible
qualification, consequently his claim for appointment has been
turned down. The further contention of the petitioner-appellant
that his case ought to be considered under the regulation dated
06.03.2016, also does not merit consideration, in view of the
clear stipulation made therein that any appointment to the post
Patna High Court L.P.A No.299 of 2023 dt.05-03-2024
of Class III shall be made through the competitive examination
to be held by Bihar Staff Selection Commission, having
requisite qualification. Furthermore, he was considered, found
unqualified and did not even submit a valid driving license,
essential for a driver.
8. In view of the aforesaid facts and the
circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in the present
appeal, the same stands dismissed.
(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ)
( Harish Kumar, J)
shivank/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 12.03.2024.
Transmission Date NA
