IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.699 of 2010 AMITABH GHOSH, S/O SRI MURLI DHAR GHOSH, R/O MOHALLA- A/12, L.I.G. ASHIANA NAGAR,P.S-SHASTRI NAGAR,TOWN & DISTRICT-PATNA THE THEN ACTING PRINCIPAL BHAGALPUR COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND PRESENT DIRECTOR OF BIHAR COUNCIL OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,BIHAR REMOT SENSING APPLICATION CENTRE AND INDRA GANDHI SCIENCE COMPLEX, PLANETARIUM ,P.S.- KOTWALI IN THE DISTRICT OF PATNA. Writ petitioner/Appellant Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY , SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 5. SRI BHAGWAN SINGH, S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, PRINCIPAL, GOVT. POLYTECHNIC GULZARBAGH 7 AT PRESENT DIRECTOR, , SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. … Respondents/Respondents. ----------- 4. 01.07.2011 Heard Mr. Dhruba Mukherjee for the appellant, and Mr. Yogendra Kumar Singh, learned Assistant Counsel to S.C. 21, for the respondents. 2. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna has been preferred by the petitioner of CWJC No. 12755 of 2009, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed, and it has been held that the post of Director of Science and Technology (hereinafter referred to as ‘Director’), 2 for the period 2009-2012, which has already gone to the stream of Polytechnic, can not be disturbed. 3. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of this appeal may be indicated. The post of Director, Department of Science & Technology, Govt. of Bihar, is an ex-cadre post, and is a tenure post for three years. Appointment to the post of Director is governed by the Government Resolution dated 1.9.2000. It, inter alia, provides that the incumbent shall occupy the office for a period of three years, and the appointment for one block period of three years shall be drawn from three different streams of serving employees of Bihar Government by rotation. The three streams are engineering colleges of Bihar Government, the polytechnics of Bihar Government, and the Mining Institute of Bihar Government. After creation of the State of Jharkhand w.e.f. 15.11.2000, the present State of Bihar does not have a mining institute and, therefore, the selection has now to be by rotation from the first two streams. It is further relevant to state that the explanation clause of the Resolution provides that appointment can also be made from amongst IAS Officers of Bihar and/or 3 Bihar Administrative Service in certain circumstances. The appellant is an officer of the Engineering Colleges of Bihar. The appointment for the first block period i.e. 2000-2003 was made from amongst the officers of the Indian Administrative Service. Under the explanation clause, the appointments thereafter ought to have been made in the following manner: 2000-2003 Officer from Indian Administrative Service 2003-2006 Officer from Engineering Colleges 2006-2009 Officer from Polytechnic of Bihar Government 2009-2012 Officer from Engineering College In violation of the aforesaid policy decision, the State Government has in fact made the appointment of Director in the following manner: 2000-2003 Officer from Indian Administrative Service 2003-2006 Officer from Engineering Colleges of Bihar Government 2006-2009 Officer from Engineering Colleges of 4 Bihar Government 2009-2012 Officer from Polytechnic of Bihar Government 4. Learned counsel for the appellant raises a grievance before this Court that the turn for officers of polytechnic became due for the period 2006-2009, which was denied to them. However, consistent with the Resolution of the Bihar Government, Officers of the Engineering Colleges should take their turn for the period 2009-2012. Failure to do so has resulted in prejudice to the candidates of this stream who became eligible for the block period 2009-2012. It is, therefore, submitted that appointment of respondent no. 5 from the stream of Polytechnics may be set aside, and appointment for a fresh period of three years may be made from amongst the officers of the Engineering Colleges. The contention has been rejected by the learned single Judge. Hence this appeal at the instance of the writ petitioner. 5. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel 5 for the parties. It is correct to state that, in view of the provisions of the Resolution, officers from the stream of polytechnic of the Bihar Government should have been considered and appointed for the block period 2006- 2009, and the officers from the engineering colleges ought to have been considered for appointment for the block period 2009-2012. That did not happen. The appellant does not realize that when appointment for the period 2006-2009 was made out of turn from the stream of engineering colleges, the same was not challenged. The appellant was then perhaps not eligible for appointment. Therefore, in order to undo the injustice, the State Government took the decision to appoint the Director from the stream of polytechnic for the period 2009-2012. The administrative lapse which had taken place for the period 2006-2009, had to be corrected, and an administrative decision by way of rectification has been taken for the following period with which we agree. Upholding the contention raised by the appellant would make the Resolution unworkable. Secondly, the present Director (respondent no. 5) from the stream of polytechnics, has already completed a major portion of 6 his tenure. Disturbing the same will be in violation of the clause of the Resolution to the effect that every Director shall be in office for a block period of three years. 6. We, therefore, agree with the order of the learned single Judge. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. kanchan ( S. K. Katriar, J.) (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)