IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1556 of 2011 Kr.Arun Singh, s/o- Late Kr. Gorakh Singh, c/o- Rana Pratap Singh, at present resident of Aakashvani Road, Khajpura, P.O.- Veterinary College, P.S.- Rajiv Nagar, District- Patna. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Cane Commissioner, Sugar Cane Industry Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate-cum-Chairman, Zonal Development Council, Harkhua, Gopalganj. 4. The Cane Officer-cum-Secretary, Zonal Development Council, Harkhua, Gopalganj. 5. The Under Secretary, Sugar Cane Industry Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. For the petitioner : Mr. Gaurav Govind, Advocate. For the State : Mr. V.M.K. Sinha, A.A.G.-XIII ----------- 4 29.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Petitioner was serving as a Peon in the office of Zonal Development Council, Warsaliganj and Guraru. His services in the said Council was/were regularized w.e.f. 17.10.1989. It is the case of the petitioner that he was not paid his salary for few years for want of fund. In that situation, he approached the respondent Cane Commissioner by filing a representation (Annexure-2). The Cane Commissioner vide his letter bearing No. 851 dated 1.6.2009 (Annexure-3) recommended his case for adjustment in Zonal Development Council, Harkhua. Relevant part of the aforesaid letter is extracted hereinbelow: “Þmi;qZDr fo"k;d Jh dqekj v:.k flag ds vkosnu lgk;d futh lfpo] xzkeh.k fodkl foHkkx] Hkkjr ljdkj ,oa vU; ls izkIr i= vuqyXud lfgr dks ekuoh; vk/kkj ij 2 {ks=h; fodkl ifj"kn] gj[kqvk ¼xksikyxat½ esa fjfDr dh fLFkfr esa LFkkukUrfjr dj lek;ksftr djus gsrq fopkjkFkZ vuq'kalk ds lkFk vxzlkfjr fd;k tkrk gSA d`i;k ifj"kn dh lgefr lalwfpr djus dh d`ik dh tk;AÞ It is the stand of the petitioner that ,in the meanwhile, an order was issued by the Government in the Department of Cane Industry as contained in letter dated 21.7.2009 (Annexure-4) whereby the aforesaid recommendation made by the Cane Commissioner (Annexure-3) was annulled. The grievance of the petitioner is that the aforesaid order as contained in Annexure-4 has been used by the respondents in not granting him the relief of transfer and adjustment in the Zonal Development Council, Harkhua. It is also the stand of the petitioner that the effect of letter of recommendation issued by the respondent Cane Commissioner cannot be annulled by the Under Secretary of the Department concerned as has been done by order contained in Annexure-4. Two sets of counter affidavit have been filed on behalf of the respondents. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 5, a stand has been taken that the order contained in Annexure-4 was an order of the Government authenticated by the Under Secretary. It is stated that in the light of the recommendation (Annexure-3), case of the petitioner was placed before the Zonal Development Council which did not approve his adjustment in the said council 3 for diverse reasons. The minutes dated 4.4.2010 of the meeting of the Zonal Development Council, Gopalganj has been enclosed as Annexure-R/1. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 4, the aforesaid minutes has been enclosed to show that the matter concerning the petitioner was placed before and considered by the said Zonal Development Council, Gopalganj as Item No. 3 and the adjustment of petitioner in the said Council was denied. In paragraph 9, the said respondent has explained as under:- “9. That in reply to the averments made in para 8 of the writ application, it is stated that the letter dated 01.06.2009 was received in the office of the Zonal Development Council, Harkhua, Gopalganj and the issue was placed before the Council in the meeting dated 20.04.2010. After it apprised of the fact of non-availability of the post and the technical difficulties, the Council did not agree up on the recommendation of the cane commissioner (as contained in Annexure-3 of the writ application), the factual situation behind this decision is that there is no vacancy in the similar post in the Zonal Development Council, Harkhua Gopalganj. Moreover, a policy has also been mooted out by the budgetary situation. A copy of the Memo No. 851 dated 1.6.2009 of the Cane Commissioner, Bihar to reduce the number staff to balance the budgetary situation is communicated.” On a consideration of the materials on record and after hearing the parties, this Court finds that the matter in the light of recommendation made by the Cane Commissioner was placed before and considered by the Zonal Development Council, Gopalganj and the recommendation of the Cane Commissioner was not acceded to on the ground that there was 4 no post available and the fund allocation to the said Council was deficient and as such there was a proposal for rationalization of the employees serving the said Council. Petitioner was an employee of the Zonal Development Council, Warsaliganj and Harkhua. There is no pleadings on record to show that the services of the petitioner was released therefrom. The Zonal Development Council, Gopalganj considered the case of adjustment of petitioner and refused the same by taking a resolution in the Zonal Development Council, Gopalganj. Reasons therefor have been stated in the counter affidavit which has already been taken note hereinabove. A stand has been taken that there is/are no post available with the Zonal Development Council, Gopalganj on which the petitioner could have been adjusted. Even if the post is/are vacant, it is for the said Council to decide whether it will accept any other employees from different Council or not. There may be diverse reasons therefor. In my view, the respondents have not committed any illegality in not acceding to the recommendation made by the respondent Cane Commissioner in favour of the petitioner. The application is dismissed. pkj (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)