IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15448 of 2010 RAGHUBANSH KUMAR . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 3. 08.11.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 1.9.2010 to the extent that it posts him as District Education Officer, Kishanganj. The petitioner has no grievance with regard to repatriation of his service by that order from the Bihar School Examination Board to the Human Resources Development Department. It is submitted that the petitioner belongs to the Bihar Education Service Class I, Inspection. He was posted in the Bihar School Examination Board as Director Academics, a post equivalent to that of Regional Deputy Director of Education in the Human Resources Development Department. Both are Class I service under the Bihar Education Service carrying same scale of pay. Therefore, when the petitioner was brought to the Human Resources Development Department he should have been posted on the post commensurate to his status as Regional Deputy Director of Education and on which post his juniors are working. The post of District Education Officer is not the same in status and rank as the Regional Deputy Director of Education and the latter is the administrative/controlling authority also writing the annual confidential remarks of the District Education Officer. The petitioner has, therefore, been virtually asked to work under his juniors. Reliance is placed on a judgment of the Supreme 2 Court reported in AIR 1988 SC 78 (P.K. Chinnasamy v. Govt. of T.N.) Counsel for the State pointed out that the impugned order has been issued on 1.9.2010. Prior to the same on 28.4.2010 all vacancies of Regional Deputy Director of Education were filled up. It is also suggested that the petitioner was sent back as a measure of punishment. The counter affidavit explicitly acknowledges that an enquiry was held against the petitioner while he was discharging duties as Director Academics in the Bihar School Examination Board. Nothing was found against him and the matters closed as stated in the counter affidavit. If the matter was closed it has absolutely no relevance to the controversy under issue. Had there been a proper proceeding against the petitioner leading to his posting as District Education Officer, this Court may have been required to consider different aspects which do not presently arise. It goes beyond the pale of any controversy now that the post of Regional Deputy Director of Education is higher in rank and status to the District Education Officer. The former is the controlling and the confidential reporting authority of the latter. The post of Director Academics is equivalent to the post of Regional Deputy Director of Education. If the petitioner was being sent back to the Human Resources Development Department he had to be given a post commensurate to his status and rank. He cannot be asked to work under his juniors. In the case of P.K. Chinnasamy (Supra)) relied upon by the petitioner it has been held at paragraphs 4 & 5 as follows:- 3 “4. In a democratic polity as ours, the bureaucracy works as the pivot for running the administration. So far as the state is concerned, matters of policy and the ultimate responsibility for running the administration is obviously on the apex body — the Council of Ministers and the Executive Head — the Governor. It cannot be lost sight of that every public officer is a trustee and in respect of the office he holds and the salary and other benefits which he draws, he is obliged to render appropriate service to the State. The scheme postulates that every public officer has to be given some posting commensurate to his status and circumstances should be so created that he would be functioning so as to render commensurate service in lieu of the benefits received by him from the State. If an officer does not behave as required of him under the law he is certainly liable to be punished in accordance with law but it would ordinarily not be appropriate to continue an officer against a post and provide no work to him and yet pay him out of the Consolidated Fund. It is with this view that we had called upon the respondent Government to give the appellant a proper posting and extract work from him. Since the State Government has not done the needful, it has become necessary for the court to interfere. Ordinarily in a case of this type, the court would have no role to play. 5. We direct the respondent government of Tamil Nadu to give an appropriate posting to the appellant within one month from today and once he is given such posting, he must be assigned normal official work to be discharged by him as contemplated under the rules and procedure in respect of the post the appellant is assigned. We hope and trust that the appellant shall be given a proper assignment commensurate to his position in the service and the State Government in its action would exhibit no bias or mala fides. We make it clear that we have not examined the correctness of such allegations as we are sure, given an opportunity, the State Government would exhibit ideal conduct as an employer and establish by its conduct that the allegations were baseless. We make no order for costs.” This Court holds that in view of the discussions contained in the judgment of the Supreme Court relied upon by the petitioner the impugned order dated 1.9.2010 is not sustainable in so far as it posts the petitioner as a District Education Officer. 4 In accordance with the directions contained in paragraph 5 of the aforesaid judgment, this Court issues a mandamus to post the petitioner as a Regional Deputy Director of Education commensurate with his rank and status within a maximum period of eight weeks from the date of receipt and/or presentation of a copy of this order. Needless to state that if necessary in order to accommodate the petitioner as a senior person the junior-most officer as the Regional Deputy Director of Education shall have to make place for him. In the interregnum the respondents are required to give a suitable posting to the petitioner commensurate with his rank and status in accordance with law so that the petitioner is not required to work under any junior. The impugned order is quashed, but only to the extent indicated. The writ application stands allowed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)