IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1684 of 1996 Serajul Hussain, son of Md. Hussain, resident of Village Chailaha Gumti (Lala Tola), P.O. Chailaha Gumti (Lala Tola), P.S. Motihari, District East Champaran. ---------- Petitioner Versus 1. State of Bihar, through the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Science & Technology, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Science and Technology, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 3. The Director, Science & Technology, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 4. The Additional Secretary, Department of Science & Technology, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 5. The District Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari. 6. The Principal, Indian College of Engineering, Motihari, District East Champaran. 7. Shri Baidya Nath Thakur, Father’s name not known, Resident of Village Mazuraha, P.S. Harfidhi, District East Champaran. ------- Respondents ----------- 10 30.6.2011 Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the admitted position that after takeover of the Indian College of Engineering, Motihari by the State Government there was only one possible post of Driver under the staffing pattern on which absorption of a working employee of the aforesaid private engineering college could be made, this Court would not find no error in the decision taken by the competent authority of the State Government in absorbing the services of the respondent no.7 in preference to the petitioner. The respondent no.7 was admittedly appointed in 2 the college on regular basis on 5.11.1982 against a post of driver whereas, the petitioner was appointed in such capacity on regular basis only on 10.5.1983. This is infact absolutely clear from the document as contained in Annexure-A to the counter affidavit, the appointment letter of the respondent no.7 and the appointment letter of the petitioner contained in Annexure-2 to the writ application. Moreover in view of the fact that the Take Over Act itself envisaged taking over of services in light of report of screening committee based on service records of working teaching and non-teaching employees and the State Government upon receipt of such screening report, in which even the name of the petitioner did not find place, this Court would not be in a position to accept the submission of Mr. S.P. Srivastava learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner’s earlier working period on muster roll basis from 1.7.1981 should have taken into account for the purpose of reckoning him senior to Respondent no. 7. True it is that there are evidence 3 to show that the petitioner had been working on muster roll basis in the college since 1.7.1981 but, when he himself had accepted the regular appointment on 10.5.1983, a status which was already given to the respondent no.7 on 5.11.1982, he will be deemed to be junior to the respondent no.7, who was already drawing higher salary in prescribed pay scale from an earlier date as a driver appointed on regular basis. Consequently, the decision of the Screening Committee, a Committee constituted by the State Government for examining the service record of the petitioner and others on the basis of which the impugned order has been passed, cannot be faulted with either on fact or in law. There being a single sanctioned post of Driver under the approved staffing pattern for the College in question the petitioner’s absorption was not possible in preference to the respondent no.7. That being so, this application fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)