IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6954 of 2010 1. Ram Vinay Pandey, Son of Jitandeo Pandey, resident of Village Behlura Rampur, Post Office Nagwan, Police Station Naubatpur, District Patna. 2. Gupteshwar Singh, Son of Late Ram Naresh Singh, resident of Village Barahilpur Tola, Post Office Barahimpur, Police Station Masrakh, District Chapra (Saran). 3. Umendra Ram, Son of Ram Dayal Ram, resident of village and Post Office Poawan, Police Station Masaurhi, District Patna. 4. Bhubneshwar Lal Das, Son of Late Nilambar Lal Das, resident of village Belahi, Post Office Lohat, Police Station Pandol, District Madhubani……………………………………………….………………Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Commissioner, Department of Transport, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Commissioner, Department of Transport, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Bihar Staff Selection Commission, through its Secretary having office at Shekhpura, Patna. 5. The Secretary, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, having office at Vetnary College, Shekhpura, Patna-14…………Respondents ----------- For Petitioners: M/s Anand K. Ojha & Ashok K. Karna, Advocates For the State: Mr. Manoj Kumar,A.C. to G.A.6 For BSSC : Mr. S.S. Sundaram, Advocate ***** 3 20.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the respondents. Petitioners are data entry operators working in the Transport Department in the Headquarters on 2 contract basis at a fixed remuneration. In view of the increasing work of data entry operators through computers, a Rule was framed for appointment of data entry operators on regular basis, namely, Transport Departmental Data Entry Operator Recruitment Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”). As per the Rules, 65% of total sanctioned vacancies of data entry operators in the State was required to be filled up by advertisement from open market and rest 35% vacancies were required to be filled up from eligible and qualified data entry operators appointed on contract basis in the Department. The work of recruitment was assigned to the Bihar State Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the Commission”). Since large number of vacancies of data entry operators was available with the Transport Department, requisition was sent by the Department to the Commission on 22.02.2007. On receipt of requisition, Commission was required to start the 3 process of recruitment by inviting applications from open market for appointment as data entry operators against 65% vacancies and to give opportunity to the candidates, who were already working as data entry operators on contract basis, to apply for their regular appointment against 35% vacancies. Accordingly, the Commission prepared a draft advertisement, sent it to the Department which was approved and returned to the Commission on 02.09.2009, for publication in the newspapers. In the meanwhile, petitioners and other data entry operators, who were working in the Headquarters of the Transport Department, were screened by the Department itself with the help of NIC and they were found to be qualified in all respects for their regular appointment as data entry operators. Their names were, therefore, recommended to the Commission for consideration of their cases against 35% vacancies. The matter stands still at that stage. Therefore, petitioners, who were found 4 eligible in all respects for regular appointment against sanctioned vacant posts, are still continuing on contract basis under the Department at a fixed remuneration. It is submitted that if the Commission would have taken steps promptly, they would have been appointed by now and they would have got into regular service of the Government drawing salary in regular pay-scale with all other benefits admissible to a regular Government servant. The grievance of the petitioners appeared as genuine and, therefore, this Court requested the learned counsel for the Commission to seek instructions as to within what time the Commission will be able to complete the process. Learned counsel for the Commission, on instructions, has submitted that, due to lack of infrastructure, dearth of staff and large number of requisitions made by different Departments of the Government in which writ applications have been filed in this Court and orders have already been passed, it is not possible 5 for the Commission to give a definite time frame for completing the process for appointment of data entry operators under the Rules pursuant to the requisition sent by the Department. Handicap of the Commission appears to be genuine. In other matters, since directions have been issued by this Court fixing a time frame, the Commission has to proceed first to avoid any contempt. Therefore it is quite understandable that the Commission is not in a position, at this stage, to give time frame for completing process of appointment so far as data entry operators are concerned in terms of the Rules. Hence, this Court does not intend to fix up a time frame for the Commission to complete the same and put the Commission into further difficulty. However, since in this writ application, grievance of the petitioners is in respect of their appointment against 35% vacancies earmarked for appointment of data entry operators already working in the Department on 6 contract basis, the Commission can examine as to whether it can split up the advertisement or advertise the said 35% posts for consideration of cases of data entry operators already working for their regular appointment on vacant sanctioned posts of the quota. Obviously, this consideration of the candidates already working as data entry operators for their appointment against 35% sanctioned posts will require comparatively simpler procedure. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in fact, only eight candidates, who have been recommended by the Department, are eligible for consideration of their cases under 35% quota. If that is so, the Commission can surely consider splitting up the procedure, consider their cases separately and make its recommendation to the Department for their regular appointment in accordance with law at an early date. Learned counsel for the petitioners refers to an order passed by this Court in CWJC No. 8514 of 2001 which 7 was disposed of on 07.02.2007 preferred by the petitioners in which certain directions were issued to the Department for consideration of the cases of petitioners for regularization. The Commission may consider the effect and import of that judgment also for the purpose of consideration of the cases of the petitioners. With the above observations and with expectations that the Commission will give this matter a sincere thought, the writ application is disposed of. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)