Commission cannot relegate an employee without hearing him: Supreme Court

July 2020 passed by the first respondent relegating the affording an opportunity of hearing to him in alleged as the “Commission”) published an advertisement dated 29th December 2001 in various newspapers inviting applications from eligible candidates for conducting the 45th Combined Competitive Examination. The petitioner had participated in Administrative Service vide order dated 21st March 2005 and after successful period of probation became a substantive Shri Baldeo Choudhary had also participated along with the petitioner in the 45th Combined an advertisement dated 29th December 2001 could not in the year 2008 and finally succeeded in persuading the and became member of Bihar Administrative Service were The order of the learned Single Judge dated 19th March 2012 was the subject matter of challenge in Letters Patent the Division Bench of the High Court of Patna moulded the 19th March 2012. The relevant extract is reproduced “We are alive that the writ petitioner has the time the writ petition was filed the result was declared and all appointments were made. We are by the learned single judge the writ petitioner on account of his placement in the select list becomes petitioner will be appointed as such: but the writ other words the writ petitioner will take seniority and The order of the Division Bench became the subject this Court in Civil Appeal No. 3307 of 2015 and while dismissing the appeal this Court in its order dated 23rd October 2019 ruled out the apprehension exhibited by the Commission and the extract of the order is reproduced been ranked second. The same is however disputed by the respondent is already working in the Sales Tax facts and circumstances of the case interest of justice to be appointed from the date of the judgment of the Division Bench i.e. from 29th November 2012. From that day onwards the respondent should be given increments etc. Since the respondent is already in service he is not awarded any salary. Since now he stands qualified for appointment the State shall consider the respondent’s case for appointment on a The bare reading of the order passed by the Division Bench which has been confirmed by this Court with a clarification revise the placement of original writ petitioner with notional benefits of service such as continuity of service increment etc as he was already in service no salary for the interregnum The Commission under the guise of the order of this advertisement dated 29th December 2001 and forwarded it to the Government of Bihar Patna vide letter dated 4th May 2020 the revised recommendations at Sl. No. 2 and displacing the petitioner relegating his placement from Bihar Administrative the petitioner to Bihar Education Service on a justification matter of challenge at the instance of the petitioner in the Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner preferred by the Commission before this Court in Civil Appeal order dated 23rd October 2019 confined consideration for November 2012 but the directions of this Court have been completely misread by the authorities and the wholesome October 2019 disturbing the cadre allotment of the persons who held pursuant to an advertisement dated 29th December 2001 writ petition nor been heard and further submits that circumstances at least qua the petitioner is not sustainable in Per contra learned counsel for the respondents while supporting the order impugned submits that the commission the petitioner being last in the open category in Bihar Administrative Service rightly relegated from Bihar Administrative Service to Bihar Education Service vide order dated 23rd July 2020 and submits that their action being in 11. This Court was conscious of the fact that although the Division Bench of the High Court in its judgment dated 29th list which was recommended by the Commission of the candidates who had participated in the 45th Combined Competitive Examination held pursuant to an advertisement dated 29th December 2001 after serving for almost 15 years in be in the interest of justice. But as the Commission had an 29th November 2012 this Court ruled out the apprehension and made a further clarification under its order dated 23rd October In the given circumstances what was required for the at the appropriate place in the select list which was placement in the select list with seniority and other notional benefits of service including continuity of service increment etc. 13. We find justification in what being contended by learned consequences and indeed the order impugned dated 23rd July 2020 could not have been passed by the respondents without compliance of the order of this Court dated 23rd October 2019 its order dated 23rd October 2019 left no manner of doubt in its implementation and there was no justification left for the Combined Competitive Examination held pursuant to the advertisement dated 29th December 2001 and acted upon in Choudhary being sui generis was to be considered for appointment w.e.f. 29th November 2012 in terms of the revised recommendations made by the Commission qua him without disturbing the cadre seniority of the persons including the petitioner in Bihar Administrative Service to which he was otherwise entitled for in compliance of the order of this Court dated 23rd October 2019 assigning him seniority and the 15. The respondents in our view were not at all justified in neither observed by the Division Bench of the High Court nor expressed by this Court in its order dated 23rd October 2019 relegating the petitioner from Bihar Administrative Service to Bihar Education Service after he had rendered 15 years’ of 16. Consequently in our considered view the writ petition deserves to succeed and is accordingly allowed and the order impugned dated 23rd July 2020 qua the petitioner is hereby

Summary: Relegating an employee from a particular department of service after particularly long years of service and without being heard is not just against the principle of natural justice but also has adverse civil consequences. This remarkable judgement was passed by the bench consisting of Justice Hemant Gupta, Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice L. Nageswara Rao of the Supreme Court in the matter of Subhash Kumar v The State of Bihar &amp; Ors., [WRIT PETITION(CIVIL) NO(S). 798 OF 2020].  The present petition had been filed by the petitioner after him providing 15 years of service had been shifted from Bihar Administrative Service to Bihar Education Service without even being heard. further, the respondent had allegedly given the same exam as the petitioner but could not clear it claiming that a particular subject of General Studies- II had not been checked correctly. The court was convinced of the same and due to the court’s order, the petitioner had suffered. Thus, The respondent and petitioner had together approached the court with this petition. The petitioner argued that him being shifted from the administrative services to the education services without being heard was 2in violation of the principles of natural justice and in disregard of the order of this Court dated 23rd October, 2019. Further, the counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner had no demur regarding appointment of the respondent who had finally succeeded in his own rights on dismissal of the appeal On the other hand, the counsel for the respondents opined that the commission had no option but to revise the select list in light of the order passed by the court on 23rd October, 2019. Due to the list being revised, the respondent was appointed according to his merit but the petitioner being last in the open category in Bihar Administrative Service was shifted from the Administrative Service to the Education Service.] The court held, “there was no justification left for the Commission to hold an exercise and revise the select list of 45th Combined Competitive Examination held pursuant to the advertisement dated 29th December, 2001 and acted upon in 2005 after a lapse of 15 years at the same time the case of Baldeo Choudhary being sui generis was to be considered for appointment w.e.f. 29th November, 2012 in terms of the revised recommendations made by the Commission qua him without disturbing the cadre/seniority of the persons including the petitioner in Bihar Administrative Service to which he was otherwise entitled for in compliance of the order of this Court dated 23rd October, 2019 assigning him seniority and the consequential benefits etc. w.e.f. 29th November, 2012.