IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.887 of 2002 DEVENDRA PRASAD ROY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3 22-10-2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. In spite of notice to respondent no.8, Lala Mahto another driver of the department of Food Supply and Commerce, Government of Bihar, nobody has appeared on his behalf to oppose the writ petition. The petitioner has challenged through this writ petition an order of the Department of Food Supply and Commerce, communicated to him through letter dated 26-12-2001 (Annexure-54) issued by the Deputy Secretary of the department whereby his representation claiming seniority over respondent no.8 has been rejected by holding that petitioner’s appointment on the sanctioned post of driver was against a post of Regional Deputy Directorate and not against a post of driver at the headquarter level of the department. The petitioner has annexed with the writ petition large number of documents including an appointment letter contained in annexure-10 dated 18-4-1983 to show that he was appointed as a Jeep driver in the department against a vacant post ( Backward Class ) and the appointment letter clearly mentions that his salary shall be payable from the head 288-Social Security, Welfare and Civil Supply Project - 2 - of Headquarters. Petitioner has also annexed several other documents to show that the Committee constituted to make the selection in which petitioner was selected also mentions that the vacancy was of the department and he was called for interview vide annexure-9 for such a post. It appears that respondent no.8 was a driver of Bihar State Food Corporation from before and along with a vehicle he was deputed to work in the department and on that account he was adjusted on a vacant post of driver under the department vide letter dated 26-2-1996. An enquiry by the department in respect of claim of petitioner vis-à-vis respondent no.8 was ordered by Annexure-27 dated 16-10-2001 and the enquiry report dated 13-11-2001 (Annexure-51) supports the contention of the petitioner that he was appointed on 18-4-1983 as a driver of the departmental jeep and was receiving salary from the departmental head 3456. The counter affidavit of the State attempts to support the impugned order by claiming that petitioner’s appointment was against a post of driver in the Regional Directorate but no documents or material have been annexed in support of such a claim. There are over-whelming documents annexed with the writ petition which support the claim of the petitioner that he was appointed as a driver of the department in the year 1983 and hence this court finds the impugned order contained in annexure-54 to be against facts and against law and the same is therefore quashed. The department is directed to treat the petitioner as a driver of the - 3 - Naresh department ( Headquarter ) since his appointment 1983 and to determine his seniority accordingly. Although the petitioner has challenged the appointment of respondent no.8 through this writ petition but this court is not persuaded to go into that at the instance of the petitioner. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. (Shiva Kirti Singh,J) - 4 - - 5 - - 6 - Naresh - 7 -