IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17077 of 2008 UMESH PRASAD SINGH, S/O LATE BISHO SINGH, R/O VILLAGE-KATARDIH, P.S.-KATRISARAI, DISTRICT- NALANDA, AT PRESENT POSTED AT ADDITIONAL PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, ISSUA, BLOCK-SARMERA, DISTRICT-NALANDA. ………………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE DIRECTOR IN CHIEF, HEALTH SERVICES, STATE OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE CIVIL SURGEON CUM CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, BIHARSHARIF, NALANDA. 3. THE ASSISTANT CIVIL SURGEON CUM MEDICAL OFFICER, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE BLOCK RAJGIR, DISTRICT-NALANDA. 4. THE INCHARGE MEDICAL OFFICER ADDITIONAL PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, ISSUA, (SARMERA), P.S.-SARMERA, DISTRICT-NALANDA. ………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr.Anirudh Kr.Singh,Adv. For the State : Mr.Rameshwar Pd. Bharti, SC-14, Mr.Ajay Kumar, AC to SC-14 and Mr.Md.Aslam Ansari, AC to SC-14. ----------- 4 20.08.2010 Petitioner in this writ application has challenged the order dated 1.12.2005 passed by the Incharge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Rajgir (Nalanda), as contained in Annexure-2/1, by which, in purported compliance to the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 448 of 2005 (Arvind Kumar Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors), petitioner has been reverted from class-III post of Clerk to class-IV post which he held earlier. Copy of the order passed by a 2 Division Bench of this Court has been produced on record by the respondents as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. The order shows that the LPA of the writ petitioners against the order of dismissal of the writ application was rejected by the Division Bench precisely on the ground that the said writ petitioners were holding a technical post of Basic Health Worker in class-IV and from there they had been promoted to the post of Clerk in class-III which was not a technical post. The Court also found that there were many other irregularities in the promotion. Therefore, the Division Bench held that the learned single Judge had rightly rejected the writ application of the petitioners and had permitted recovery of the amount paid to them on account of promotion. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is not covered by the said judgment of the Division Bench mainly on the ground that he was not holding a technical post in class-IV and, therefore, he was entitled to promotion from non-technical class-IV post to non- 3 technical class-III post and that the promotion of petitioner was on the basis of a valid resolution of the District Establishment Committee. Therefore, the promotion of the petitioner could not be held illegal. He further submits that the said judgment of the Division Bench has been applied in the case of the petitioner blindfolded and without examining as to whether the petitioner’s case was covered by the said judgment or not and that petitioner has not been given any opportunity to explain that his case was not covered by the said judgment. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that in compliance to the order of the Division Bench other persons also have been reverted. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in the reversion of the petitioner from class-III post to class-IV post. From bare reading of the Annexure- 2/1, the impugned order of the Incharge Medical Officer, it is apparent that no other ground for reversion of the petitioner has been mentioned therein, except that the same was being passed in compliance to the order 4 passed by Division Bench of this Court in the said LPA. Apparently, the petitioner has not been given opportunity to show cause and to explain the respondents that his case was not covered by the said judgment of the Division Bench and his case was distinguishable inasmuch as his promotion was pursuant to the valid resolution of the Establishment Committee and that he was holding a non- technical post in class-IV also. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner should be allowed one opportunity by the respondents to explain his case and distinguish his case from the appellants of LPA No. 448 of 2005. In the circumstances, the impugned Annexure-2/1 is quashed. The respondents are given liberty to issue show cause notice to the petitioner with opportunity to him to file his explanation and thereafter pass fresh orders in accordance with law after considering the explanation of the petitioner. The writ application is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions. The interim order passed earlier in 5 this case restraining the respondents from recovery of the amount from the petitioner shall continue till fresh orders are passed by the respondents after considering the show cause/explanation of the petitioner. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)