IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.92 of 2006 SATENDRA KUMAR Son of Sri Narsingh Narain Singh at present residing at Narayan Bhawan, N.H. 28, Bhagwanpur Chowk Muzaffarpur, P.O.-Muzaffarpur, P.S.-Muzaffarpur Town, District-Muzaffarpur. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner- cum-Special Secretary, Department of Road Construction, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Chief Engineer, Department of Road Construction, North Bihar Wing, Darbhanga. 4. The Deputy Secretary, Department of Road Construction, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 5. The Superintendent Engineer, Department of Road Construction, North Bihar Circle, Muzaffarpur. 6. The Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division No. 1, Muzaffarpur. ----------- 5. 28.09.2010 Right through, the claim of the petitioner is that his case is identical to the case of one Vinod Kumar Paswan because both petitioner and Vinod Kumar Paswan came to be appointed in similar fashion and they ought to be treated similarly in matter of retaining him in service if not continuance thereof. That was the plea taken by the petitioner when he filed C.W.J.C. No. 10007 of 1999 (Annexure-5). The High Court did not accept the position of the petitioner but disposed of the matter with a direction upon the respondents to take a decision by passing a speaking order. The speaking order is dated 4.8.2005 and has been annexed as 2 Annexure-7, as well as is under challenge in the present writ application. By virtue of the impugned order claim of the petitioner has been rejected for the reasons indicated therein. There is clear position that the appointment of the petitioner along with Mr. Paswan was for a short period of three months subject to further extension of service. Vinod Kumar Paswan came to be appointed on 11.12.1982 on the basis of an office order and he joined the post on 16.12.1982. However, he along with the petitioner came to be removed from service on 14.5.1985 because no further extension came to be given by the competent authority for their retention or continuance. Petitioner came in the same fashion but he was appointed on 23.10.1984 and removed on 14.5.1985. In other words Vinod Kumar Paswan obviously was senior in matter of engagement. The establishment committee thereafter considered the case of both of Mr. Paswan as well as the present petitioner. They made a recommendation for appointment of Mr. Paswan because he belonged to the Scheduled Caste Category and also the fact that he was senior to the petitioner in the matter of engagement but petitioner’s case was not 3 recommended because he belonged to the General Category and was junior in terms of engagement. The admitted position is that the petitioner has not worked after his removal in 1985. The claim of parity of the petitioner with Mr. Paswan does not stand to reason in view of the fact which have been recorded by the authority contained in Annexure-7 and noticed by this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no roster clearance. The post on which Mr. Paswan was appointed is not reserved for Scheduled Caste and that the manner in which two appointments were made is identical. He also submits that the respondents have carried out the direction of the Court because of Annexure-7 at the level of the Deputy Secretary and not the Engineer-in-Chief cum Special Secretary. So far as the roster clearance or reservation is concerned, since neither the petitioner nor Mr. Paswan came to be appointed after due advertisement or process of advertisement and therefore, this aspect has no meaning. The decision has been taken at the level of the Deputy Secretary who is also a limb of the State and he has no less power in taking a decision and communication of the 4 same under the rules of the Executive business. Even otherwise the reasons given in Annexure-7 have to be looked into and not the position of the author because it is not a case of a disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner, where the authority below the rank of the appointing authority cannot take a decision. Even otherwise petitioner has failed to establish parity with Mr. Paswan, he has been out of service for 25 years now. In the stated circumstance the Court is not inclined to consider his case for engagement. No interference is required with Annexure-7. This writ application is dismissed. Anand Kr. ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)