IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.219 of 2009 VED PRAKASH LAL son of Shri Ganesh Prakash Lal, Resident of Dujra, P.S. Budha Colony, Dist. Patna ….. Appellant Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through Chief Secretary, Hoovt. Of Bihar.Patna. 2. Principal Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Govt. ofg Bihar, Vikash Bhawan,Bailey Road, patna 800015 3. Bihar State Agriculture Marketing Board ( Dissolved) through its Administrator, Pant Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna -800 001. 4. The Administrator,Bihar State Agriculture Marketing Board (Dissolved), Pant Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna-800 001` 5. Secretary, Department of Urban Development and Housing, Government of Bihar, Patna. 6. Bihar State Housing Board through its Managing Director, Patna. ……. Respondents. ----------- For the Appellant : M/s. P.N. Shahi, Advocate Ashraf Ansari Sajid Salim Rehan For the Respondents: Mr. Ashutosh No.2 JC to G.P. –VIII ------------- 4 30.4.2009 Petitioner was one of the two senior most Executive Engineer (Civil) of the Bihar Agriculture Marketing Board. The Board was dissolved on 8.2.2008 by statutory provision, the employees were to be rehabilitated in other departments or boards. The claim of the petitioner is that by virtue of the assignment he is being relegated to a lower post and if he has an opening at the post which he held in the Marketing Board by being sent on deputation to the Housing Board, the authorities of the State should not come in the way .The petitioner’s request was rejected and he was asked to work as a Junior Engineer in the Building Construction Department. It is also stated that after he joins the above department as Junior Engineer, his request can be considered. . It is contended on behalf of the appellant that in terms of section 6(1) of the Bihar Agriculture Produce Market Committee (Repeal) - 2 - Act, 2006, all employees are to continue on the same terms and conditions until appropriate scheme is framed for them. The Repeal Act of 2006 has been challenged before this Court and Division Bench of this Court held that the Act of 2006 is valid. It is further submitted that instead of posting of the petitioner as executive engineer the petitioner was asked to work on the post of junior engineer in the Road Construction Department and not in the Marketing Board. There is vacancy in the Housing Board but petitioner’s deputation was not allowed. The housing Board also requested to send two Executive Engineers on deputation for one year from the Marketing Board by letter dated 26.12.2008. The petitioner possessed all the qualification and he was working in the same rank in the Marketing Board. In fact, insistence of the respondent to join in the lower post of Junior Engineer and then to consider his request was manifestly unfair. As per the statutory provision, he should be posted in the same rank and the respondent cannot make such technicalities for no fault of the petitioner. In fact, we have requested the Government pleader to seek instruction whether the petitioner could be allowed to join in the Housing Board in the same position, which he was holding in the Marketing Division instead of insisting on technicalities. It appears that the suggestion made was not even placed before the Government by the Government Pleader and a counter affidavit was filed re-stating the original contentions. We are of the view that the stand taken by the respondent is totally illegal, arbitrary, and unfair and against the statutory provisions, by which protection was given to the employees of the - 3 - Marketing Board when it was dissolved. Compelling a person to join in Sa lower rank and then to consider for promotion is most unfair and arbitrary. When the Housing Board requested for deputation of the Executive Engineer, it was of equal rank of that of the petitioner. The respondent ought to have allowed that request. In fact, the Board’s letter dated 26.12.2008 was to depute two Executive Engineers working in the Marketing Board. Considering the scheme of the repealed Act and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, instead of compelling the petitioner to join in a lower rank, the respondent ought to have allowed the request for deputation after formally absorbing him in any of the departments in equal rank and in the same cadre and same day sent him on deputation. In the above circumstances, we allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge and the impugned order dated 1.1.2009 (Annexure-5 in the writ petition). We direct the respondent to allow the request of the petitioner, after complying with the technical formalities. (J.B. Koshy, CJ) (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J) Rahman/