IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2856 of 2011 SUDHIR KUMAR DAS, S/O LATE SURYA NARAYAN LAL DAS, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILLAGE & P.O. MIRDAUL, P.S. NARPATGANJ, DISTRICT ARARIA, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 302, MANTRA BHARTI APARTMENT, RUKANPURA, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 14---------------------------------------------------------------------PETITIONER Versus 1.THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD PATNA, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE AT VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 2.THE CHAIRMAN, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD PATNA, OFFICE AT VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 3.THE MEMBER ADMINISTRATION, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD PATNA, OFFICE AT VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 4.THE SECRETARY, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, OFFICE AT VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 5.THE JOINT SECRETARY, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD PATNA, OFFICE AT VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA------RESPONDENTS ----------- For the petitioner :Mr.Amrendra Narayan, Advocate For the B.S.E.B. :Mr.Ranjit Sinha, Advocate ----- 2. 14.02.2011 This is the second round of litigation by the petitioner. Earlier also the petitioner had come to this Court by filing C.W.J.C.No. 8207 of 2004 which was disposed of by order dated 14.11.2005 observing as follows : “It appears from the vacancy notification, as was advertised, that the Board wanted to supply the vacancy of Director, Information Technology by an existing employee of the Board and not by an outsider. The advertisement made it clear that the candidate, who may be chosen to supply the vacancy should be already an Electrical Superintending Engineer and is likely to continue to work in the said rank for at least three years more or the candidate should have worked as the Electrical Executive Engineer for a period of seven years and is likely to work in the Directorate in the same rank at least for three 2 years more. The petitioner, though, was not qualified to apply, for he did not have the required eligibility as was notified but still then he submitted his application. The Board upon consideration of the merits of the applicants found that the petitioner is most suitable to supply the vacancy. The Board, however, could not appoint the petitioner, since he was ineligible in terms of the vacancy notification. In such view of the matter, the Board deputed the petitioner to the post in question, which power the Board had and has. While deputing the petitioner to the post, it was stated that he will remain on probation for a period of six months and thereby it was held out that if the petitioner is not found suitable as a deputationist within six months time his deputation may be terminated. At the same time, the Board held out that while the petitioner will remain deputed to the said post, the petitioner shall hold lien on his previous post and thereby clearly held out that during the probation his original services will not be interfered with. At the same time, it was held out by the Board that the case of the petitioner for regularization will be considered after the petitioner is suitably trained and departmentally screened. By using the word “trained”, the Board held out that the petitioner should acquire training by working either as a Superintending Engineer or by working for seven years as an Electrical Executive Engineer. The petitioner’s right to be considered for regularization will only arise after he suitably obtained such training, either by becoming an Electrical Superintending Engineer or after having been in the pay scale of Electrical Executive Engineer for seven years. There is no dispute that the petitioner has in the very recent past been accorded the post of Electrical Executive Engineer and has also been accorded the pay scale attached to the post of Electrical Executive Engineer. The right of the petitioner to be considered for 3 confirmation in the post of Director, Information Technology will accrue in favour of the petitioner in terms of the notification dated 24th April, 2001 as soon as the petitioner will complete seven years in the pay scale of Electrical Executive Engineer. With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of.” Against the aforesaid order the petitioner filed Civil Review No. 258 of 2005 which was disposed of by order dated 13.5.2009 holding that the review application was misconceived since the Writ Court had already observed that the date of grant of the pay scale of Executive Engineer to the petitioner shall be a relevant consideration. The petitioner in the present matter has challenged the order dated 23.11.2009 by which his appointment as Director, Information Technology in the unrevised scale of Rs.14,700-19,750/- has been regularized on his completion of seven years on 1.10.2009 on his regular promotion on the post of Electrical Executive Engineer. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner has approached this Court. From a consideration of the order dated 14.11.2005 of this Court it is evident that this Court has held that the petitioner though was not qualified to apply because he did not have the required eligibility as was notified but still 4 then he was found most suitable to supply the vacancy for the post of Director, Information Technology, and the Board deputed him on the said post in accordance with the power given to the Board as a deputationist for a period of six months and further at the same time held out that his regularisation will be considered after he was suitably trained and departmentally screened. This Court held that the petitioner should acquire training by working either as a Superintending Engineer or by working for seven years as an Electrical Executive Engineer and the petitioner’s right to be considered for regularization will only arise after he suitably obtained such training either by becoming an Electrical Superintending Engineer or after having been in the pay scale of Electrical Executive Engineer for seven years. This Court noted the fact that the petitioner had in the very recent past been accorded the post of Electrical Executive Engineer and had been accorded the pay scale attached to the post of Electrical Executive Engineer and his right to be considered for confirmation in the post of Director, Information Technology will accrue in favour of the petitioner in terms of the notification dated 24th April, 5 2001 as soon as the petitioner will complete seven years in the pay scale of Electrical Executive Engineer. The plea has again been raised by the petitioner that the petitioner was earlier in the pay scale of Executive Engineer since 1.1.1992 when he was granted the said higher post although from the previous order of this Court dated 14.11.2005 it is evident that this Court had in clear terms held that the period of seven years would be counted from the date of his regular promotion as the Electrical Executive Engineer otherwise there could have been no occasion for this Court to say that the right of the petitioners would arise after seven years. If the same had to be counted from 1.1.1992 then this Court would have automatically held that he was eligible for regularization with immediate effect and not in the terms as stated in the said order. The impugned order dated 23.11.2009 thus appears to be in accordance with what has been held by this Court in the order dated 14.11.2005 and thus it is not open to challenge by the petitioner by again raising the same ground which has been raised in the earlier writ application which was not accepted by this Court. 6 Thus, there is no merit in the writ application. It is accordingly dismissed. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) Spal/