IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11203 of 2005 Ramu Prasad SON OF LATE CHOUDHARY PRASAD RESIDENT OF CHESHI, P.S. NAUBATPUR, DISTRICT PATNA. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. THE SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR, HIGHER EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DIRECTOR BIHAR RASHTRA BHASHA PARISHAD, BIHAR, PATNA. ---------------------------------- For the petitioner :- M/S. Y.V. Giri, Sr. Advocate & Harish Kumar. For the State :- Mr. Shailendra Kumar Jha, A.C. to S.C. XIV ------ 11 23/09/2011 Some stories are stranger than fiction. Case of the present petitioner has a chequered history right from the point of entry into service till the State government decided to take away the benefit of promotions given to him. It reads like a kind of fairy tale. Petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Peon-cum-Treasury Peon in what is known as Sahityakar Kalakar Kalyan Kosh Parishad. This was supposed to be a wing of Bihar Rashtra Bhasha Parishad. That was way back in the year 1973. His miraculous rise is after his transfer to the main office of Bihar Rashtra Bhasha - 2 - Parishad on 26.08.1981. On 23.1.1982 from peon, he was given the post of Copy holder, a kind of promotion. He held this post for about ten years which also earned him the benefit of time bound promotion in terms of annexure-4 dated 12.2.1992. This promotion was approved by the Director, Higher Education, Government of Bihar vide notification contained in annexure-5. In 1993 the petitioner became the Publication Assistant, though it is stated that the pay scale of Publication Assistant as well as copy holder was the same. Within four years he got yet another promotion to the post of Research Assistant on a higher scale of pay. In the year 1997 itself the petitioner was transfered to the post of Publication Officer, a Class III post but a different kind of responsibility. The going was good for the petitioner till all of a sudden some enquiry started with the manner in which such promotions had been granted by the Director of Bihar Rashtra Bhasha Parishad to the employees working therein. The enquiry revealed that all was not well in the manner in which such promotions have been granted and an order was issued by the Director annulling all the - 3 - promotions granted to the petitioner. By virtue of order dated 20.05.2005 contained in annexure-11 based on the order of the Director annexure-12 came to be issued by the Rashtra Bhasha Parishad. The present writ application is a result of such a decision wherein petitioner sought quashing of annexures -11 and12. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that whatever promotions were granted to the petitioner were in exigencies of service looking at the capability of the petitioner and availability of the post. Certain exercise was also carried out giving liberty to certain persons to establish their credentials which earned promotions as was the case of the present petitioner but after many many years, petitioner has been reverted back to the initial post which was that of a peon. He has superannuated now in the year 2010 from that post since no interim protection of a kind was given to him. In the counter affidavit which has been filed on behalf of the respondents the basic thread of submissions is that the benefit which was granted or conferred upon the petitioner has no co-relation to any rule. It is an outcome of ad-hocism prevailing in the Parishad which - 4 - did not have the approval or sanction of the government and when all these facts emerged, the order contained in annexure-11 had to be issued. Learned Senior Counsel thereafter has drawn my attention to paragraphs 21 and 22 of the writ application on a very basic submission which may go to the root of the matter that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing; muchless a notice before such an order having civil consequences came to be passed against him. It is not that the petitioner had generated this order of promotion in his favour. Whatever may have been his contribution in earning this promotion but the orders came to be issued by the competent authorities who were at the helms of affair. If it was found that it was not in consonance with the rule or law, then keeping in view that some kind of right had accrued in favour of the petitioner and he was holding those posts for a number of years, the minimum which he deserves was a notice and an opportunity of hearing. There is rebuttal on the part of the respondents with regard to the statement made in paragraphs 21 and 22 of the writ application. As usual, there is a bald - 5 - statement saying that it is a matter of record. If that be so, then there is no denial but acceptance of the fact that the petitioner was neither noticed nor heard on the issue before the order having civil consequences came to be passed. In the opinion of this Court, this point is good enough to interfere with annexures 11 and 12 because no person can be condemned without being heard or being given an opportunity of hearing which is a golden rule which establishes the credibility of a democratic country like India where rule of law is an order of the day and not variance thereof. This Court may not be impressed by the kind of promotions and the circumstance which begot such promotions to the petitioner but then atleast on this is the question of notice and hearing, the Court is with the petitioner. In the result, annexures- 11 and 12 are hereby quashed and this writ application is allowed. Since petitioner has already retired, it is left to the respondents now to decide whether they can re-open the issue or not if it is permissible under the law. If not, the issue will be - 6 - allowed to rest. This writ application stands allowed with the observation aforesaid. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)