IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.460 of 2007 Kumar Anand Ranjan, General Secretary, Bihar Raj Awar Siksha Sewa Sangh S/o Sri Jagdish Pd. Sinha R/O Ram Nagar Road Postal Park, PS Kankarbagh, District Patna .... Intervener ..... Respondent .... Appellant VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Commissioner and Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Bihar, Patna 3. The Director (Primary Education) Bihar, Patna LPA No.433 of 2007 1. Ashok Kumar Giri, S/o Late Gopal Saran Giri, resident of village Bhadam, PS Giriyak, District Nalanda 2. Anant Kumar S/o Late Sakaldeep Singh, resident of village Karjan, PS Athmalgola, District Patna 3. Binay Kumar S/O Late Ramdeo Pd. Singh, resident of Village Barhat, PS Hathauri, District Muzaffarpur 4. Rajendra Singh S/o Sri Rajeshswar Singh, resident of Village Sahadpura, PS Gaurichawk, District Patna 5. Hira Sah S/O Late Ram Sahay Sah, resident of Village Sindhiya, PS Kalyanpur, Distirct Samastipur 6. Ajay Kumar Jha S/O Late Punyanand Jha, resident of Saristabad, PS Gardanibagh District Patna 7. Maksud Alam S/O Late Nathuni Mian, resident of Village Madhopur, PS Barauli District Gopalganj 8. Birendra Kumar Srivastava S/O Late Bindeshwari Pd. Resident of Chakiya PS Manjhi District Saran 9. Mithilesh Kumar Singh S/O Sri Baidhnath Singh, resident of Village Mathiya, PS Awtarnagar, District Saran ..... Petitioners ... Appellants VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Commissioner and Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Bihar, Patna 3. The Director (Primary Education) Bihar, Patna ..... Respondents .... Respondents LPA No.434 of 2007 Satendra Mochi S/O Prasidha Mochi resident of Village Bauwan, PS Sigori District Patna ..... Intervener .... Respondent .... Appellant VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar 2 30 30.7.2009 2.The Commissioner and Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Bihar, Patna 3. The Director (Primary Education) Bihar, Patna ..... Respondents .... Respondents ------- Heard the parties. 2. All the three Letters Patent Appeals arise out of same judgment and order dated 10.5.2007 whereby the Writ Court dismissed CWJC No.4257 of 2007 and also rejected the case of interveners, who had joined the writ petitioners to assail an order of the State Government dated 11.10.2006 contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition. By that order the State Government allowed absorption of 334 retrenched Supervisors of Mass Education Scheme on posts under the Subordinate Education Service (SES) but on a lower pay scale of 5000- 8000 with stipulation that their seniority in SES would be only from the date of their entry on account of absorption and they will have to undergo training within a fixed time period. During the pendency of the writ petition, the orders of transfer and posting dated 27.3.2007 and 3.4.2007 were also challenged by the nine writ petitioners. 3 3. The nine writ petitioners belong to SES and they failed to satisfy the Writ Court that the Government had committed any illegality in absorbing the 334 retrenched Supervisors. They also failed to show that they had suffered any legal injury by way of loss of seniority etc on account of impugned absorptions. Hence, the writ petition by the nine members of SES was dismissed by the order under appeal. 4. The interveners belong to Lower Subordinate Education Service (LSS) and one of them, Kumar Anand Ranjan has claimed to be General Secretary of LSS. The interveners case was also rejected by the Writ Court by holding that their chances of promotion are not affected on account of absorption of the retrenched Supervisors, who according to the State, have been absorbed against quota of direct recruits. 5. So far as appeal preferred by the nine writ petitioners bearing LPA No.433 of 2007 is concerned, it is found that it has no merit because the absorption of 334 retrenched Supervisors was in compliance of judgments and orders of this Court which required retrenched 4 employees of Mass Education Scheme to be absorbed on equivalent posts. The State had necessary power and most importantly, the writ petitioners suffered no legal injury because the persons absorbed were given lesser pay scale and were denied benefit of past service for the purpose of seniority. 6. It is the case of the interveners which has led to hearing on a number of dates and exchange of several pleadings and affidavits. The grievance of the interveners is simple that as per figures disclosed and admitted by the State, the SES cadre strength was 1441 and after adjusting the direct recruits working in the cadre of SES, there could be room for only 221 persons whereas 334 persons have been absorbed and, therefore, 113 posts meant for the members of LSS as promotees, have been usurped by the persons absorbed as direct recruits. 7. On behalf of the State learned counsel for the State has advanced three submissions to counter the case of the interveners. Firstly, it has been submitted that Annexure-2 to the writ petition which is a letter dated 20.4.1971 shows that all the earlier orders in respect of 5 appointment to Subordinate Education Service were superseded to provide opportunity of promotion to the members of Lower Subordinate Education Service against 50 per cent of the vacancies in the specified category of Subordinate Education Service. According to learned counsel for the State, the letter in Annexure-2 if carefully read, would show that the intention of the State was to reserve 50 per cent of the vacancies for promotion and not 50 per cent of the cadre strength. Secondly, it was submitted that the quota rule had never been followed strictly and, therefore, it had broken down for all practical purposes but still when the matter of absorption came for consideration, the State found that at that particular time, the number of vacancies was 843 and, therefore, absorption of 334 retrenched employees would not encroach upon 50 per cent of the vacancies meant for promotees. Lastly, it was submitted on the basis of figures in the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State in LPA No.433 of 2007 that on 31.12.2006 there were 817 vacant posts against which number of direct appointees in service was 499 and hence, there was clear 6 vacancy of 221 posts available for direct recruitment. So far as 113 excess absorptions are concerned, it has been pleaded in paragraph 16 of the supplementary counter affidavit mentioned above that by now the total number of vacant posts is about 475 whereas only 458 posts are required to be reserved for members of LSS in order to maintain their claim over 50 per cent of cadre strength. It has further been stated in paragraph 16 that 458 vacant posts are reserved for promotion from LSS and process of their promotion is already going on. On behalf of interveners, the figure of 458 posts has been disputed. According to them, now 500 posts are required for achieving quota of 50 per cent for the promotees. The difference is not of much significance because this number would keep on increasing in future due to death, retirement etc. But so will increase the number of total vacancies in the SES cadre. 8. On a careful reading of Annexure-2 it is found that the decision contained therein provides for reserving 50 per cent of posts for promotion from LSS and not 50 per cent of the vacancies. The figures of promotions and 7 direct recruitment given by the State in the past as mentioned in supplementary counter affidavit referred above, disclose that quota rule has not been followed strictly in the past and hence, the present stand of the State in paragraph 16 of the supplementary counter affidavit that now again the vacancies are sufficient to take care of promotion to the post of LSS against 50 per cent of the posts in SES appears to be quite a just and proper stand. 9. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the order of the Writ Court requires no interference. The Letters Patent Appeals are accordingly dismissed. It is expected, however, that the State shall expedite the process of promotion of members of LSS against available vacancies for them in SES and complete the process in accordance with law as early as possible, preferably within six months. There shall be no order as to costs. (Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ) I agree. (Anjana Prakash, J.) sk