IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8931 of 2011 KRISHNAKUMAR PASWAN, SON OF LATE GOVIND PASWAN, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA/VILLAGE LAXMISAGAR, SAIDPUR, DISTRICT DARBHANGA, PRESELY RESIDING AT 98/F(OLD) B.S.E.B. BOARD COLONY, P.S. SHASTRI NAGAR, DISTRICT PATNA-------------PETITIONER Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2.THE CHAIRMAN, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN, PATNA 3.THE SECRETARY, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN, PATNA 4.THE JOINT SECRETARY, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN, PATNA 5.THE DIRECTOR (PERSONNEL) BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN, PATNA-------------------------------------------RESPONDENTS ----------- For the petitioner :M/S Amresh Kumar Singh, Raj Kumar Paswan, Advocates For B.S.E.B. :Mr.Mr.Rajjit Sinha, Advocate For the State :Mr.Anant Kumar, AC to AAG II ----- 2. 19.5.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsels for the respondent Bihar State Electricity Board and for the State. This is the second round of litigation by the petitioner seeking relief which he could not get directly in the earlier writ petition. Now he has challenged the earlier Office Order of the Board which he had not challenged while filing the earlier writ petition. In C.W.J.C.No.20715 of 2010 the petitioner had sought a direction upon the authorities of the respondent Bihar State Electricity Board to consider his case for promotion from the 2 post of Statistical Officer to the post of Deputy Director of Statistics with effect from 2.11.2009 against the vacant sanctioned post, on which day he claims to have completed the requisite qualifications and experience for promotion to the said post. In the said writ petition this Court had considered the effect of the Standing Order No. 418 dated 19.7.1974 and that of the Office Order dated 19.7.1974 and reached the conclusion that mere fixing of qualification and mentioning the scale of pay of both the Statistical Officer and Deputy Director of Statistics does not mean that both the posts were actually in existence, in view of the Resolution of the Board notified by Office Order dated 19.7.1974 to create a temporary post of Statistical Officer in lieu of a temporary post of Deputy Director of Statistics which was kept in abeyance during the period the post of Statistical Officer was to continue. It was further held by this Court that so long the post of Statistical Officer continued to exist the post of Deputy Director of Statistics would remain in abeyance and both cannot remain together in view of the clear Resolution of the Board, which having been taken on the same day clearly show the mind of the authorities of the Board when such decision was taken. It was further held that the subsequent making of the post of Statistical Officer as 3 permanent without any further decision to revive the post of Deputy Director of Statistics can only mean that the post of Deputy Director of Statistics would cease to exist from the said date unless the Board decides to create separately the post of Deputy Director of Statistics. This Court had thus come to the conclusion that there being no post of Deputy Director of Statistics in existence, there can be no question of any promotion being granted to the petitioner from the post of Statistical Officer to that of Deputy Director of Statistics. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed by order dated 15.3.2011. The petitioner has now adopted a novel procedure for getting relief which he could not get in the earlier writ petition by seeking a direction to set aside the Office Order contained in Memo No. 1502 dated 19.4.1974 by which the post of Deputy Director of Statistics was kept in abeyance in the Bihar State Electricity Board without valid ground. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the posts of Statistical Officer and Deputy Director of Statistics are in two separate scales, first being in the scale of Rs.580-840/- and the other in the scale of Rs.620-1415/- and thus it was not open to the Board to have treated both the posts as same while creating 4 the post of Statistical Officer and directing the post of Deputy Director of Statistics to remain in abeyance during the period for which the post of Statistical Officer was created. It is also contended by learned counsel that the Board has not come out with any order that the post of Deputy Director of Statistics is abolished and thus the order dated 19.4.1974 cannot be allowed to stand. It is thus urged by learned counsel that the respondents should be directed to grant promotion to him to the post of Deputy Director of Statistics in view of the Standing Order dated 19th July, 1974 which separately categorizes the post of Statistical Officer and the Deputy Director of Statistics. Learned counsel for the respondent Bihar State Electricity Board submits that the writ petition is not fit to be entertained by this Court as the petitioner had not raised any such plea when he filed the earlier writ petition and it is too late for him to challenge the validity of the Office Order dated 19.4.1974 which he had not challenged earlier. In my view, apart from the present writ petition bordering upon being an abuse of the process of the Court by trying to obtain an order which the petitioner could not get in the earlier writ petition dismissed recently also suffers from the vice of 5 seeking to challenge the office order dated 19.4.1974 which remained in force for the last 37 years. Moreover, it is a well established proposition that right to create or abolish a post is a matter of administrative policy decision dependent upon exigencies of circumstances and administrative necessity. The creation, continuation and abolition of post are decided by the Government or Governmental Authorities in the interest of administration. Even if a post is abolished, in the said circumstances, the holder of the post has no right to claim continuance of the same and must go out with the said post. Reference may be made in this regard to the decision of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of N.Ramanatha Pillai vs. The State of Kerala and another :AIR 1973 SC 2641. Apart from what has already been decided in the earlier writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to show as to whether there exists any arbitrariness in the Office Order dated 19.4.1974 by which the Board decided to create a temporary post of Statistical Officer in lieu of the temporary post of Deputy Director of Statistics. If the Board did not want to increase the number of posts in the Statistical Section and keep the post of Deputy Director of Statistics on higher pay 6 scale in abeyance while creating the post of Statistical Officer on lower scale, it is not for the petitioner to complain that the same is beyond the power of the Board or against the public interest. Such matter is directly in the domain of administrative policy. The said Office Order was issued by the Board pursuant to the Resolution dated 28.6.1974 when the petitioner was not even in the service of the Board as admittedly he has joined the service of the Board in the year 1991. Thus, he cannot even raise any claim that when the said Office Order was issued there was any intention of the Board directed against him. For the aforesaid reasons and those given in the earlier writ petition, being C.W.J.C.No. 20715 of 2010 filed by the petitioner, this Court does not find any force in the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) Spal/