SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1972 Supreme(Pat) 74

PATNA HIGH COURT
N.L.Untwalia and S.Akbar Husain JJ.
Shyam Sundar Sen
Versus
State Of Bihar
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1651 of 1971 ;
Decided On : APRIL 19, 1972

The Minister, as the departmental head, has the right to disagree with the views of the officials and to take his own decision, but only if it is based on relevant considerations and with the dominant object of sending the names of the best persons.

Headnote:

MINISTERIAL INTERFERENCE - PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT - NOMINATION OF CANDIDATES FOR PROMOTION TO BIHAR JUNIOR CIVIL SERVICE - ARBITRARY AND MALA FIDE ORDER - QUASHING OF ORDER - DIRECTIVE TO DEPARTMENT TO RECONSIDER NOMINATIONS.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, an upper division assistant in the Public Health Engineering Department, challenged the order of the Minister-in-Charge of the Department, which directed the department to send the names of five persons for promotion to the Bihar Junior Civil Service, instead of the two names recommended by the department. The petitioner contended that the Minister's order was arbitrary and mala fide, and that he had no power to interfere with the recommendations of the departmental officials.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Minister's order was arbitrary and mala fide, as it was based solely on the recommendation of another Minister and members of the Legislature, without any consideration of the merits of the candidates. The court also found that the Minister had no power to interfere with the recommendations of the departmental officials, as the rules of business and the Supreme Court's decision in A. Sanjeevi Naidu's case made it clear that the Minister was the departmental head and had the right to disagree with the views of the officials, but not to make an order that went astray and was not based on relevant considerations.

Issues: 1. Whether the Minister had the power to interfere with the recommendations of the departmental officials. 2. Whether the Minister's order was arbitrary and mala fide.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Minister, as the departmental head, had the right to disagree with the views of the officials and to take his own decision, but only if it was based on relevant considerations and with the dominant object of sending the names of the best persons. 2. The Minister's order was arbitrary and mala fide, as it was based solely on the recommendation of another Minister and members of the Legislature, without any consideration of the merits of the candidates.

Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the Minister's order, and directed the Public Health Engineering Department to reconsider the matter and send two names for the general quota on relevant considerations.

Judgment

N.L.Untwalia, J.

1. Sri Shyam Sundar Sen is the sole petitioner in this writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The State of Bihar is respondent No. 1. The then Minister-in-Charge, Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Bihar, by name, is respondent No. 2. The Secretary and the Deputy Secretary of the Department are respectively respondents Nos. 3 and 4.

The Secretary, Board of Revenue, is respondent No, 5 Sri Sachida Nand Prasad Singh, Sri Devendra Bahadur Singh, Sri Kanhaiya Prasad Sinha and Sri Jagdish Prasad are respectively respondents 6, 7, 8 and 9. The petitioner has obtained a rule against the respondents to show cause why the order of respondent No. 2 contained in Annexure 4 be not quashed and why respondents 1 to 4 be not directed to give effect to the order contained in Annexure 2 and consequently respondent No. 5 should be directed to modify the order of the Board contained in Annexure 9. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 and another on behalf of respondent No. 8 and by none else. Hereinafter reference will be made to the counter-affidavit of respondents 1 to 4 as "the counter-affidavit." An affidavit in reply has been filed by the petitioner to the counter-affidavit. At the time of the hearing of the writ application respondents 7 and 8 were separately represented by their counsel.

2. The relevant facts which may be stated with reference to the petitioners case from his writ application are these. The petitioner was appointed as a lower division assistant in the year 1955. He was confirmed to that post in the year 1958 (the year 1956 is a mistake in paragraph 2). He was promoted to the post of upper division assistant in the year 1962, vacancies in the Bihar Junior Civil Service are filled up by direct recruitments as also by promotion giving chances to non-Gazetted Government servants of all departments.

The State Government takes a decision as to how many vacancies would be filled up by promotion of the non-Gazetted staff. Such a decision was taken in the year 1971 that 48 vacancies in the Bihar Junior Civil Service would be filled up by nomination of the candidates, whose names would be recommended by the Heads of Department. A letter to this effect was written by the Appointment Department on the 7th of August, 1971. A copy of this letter is Annexure 1 to the writ application and Annexure A to the counter-affidavit. This letter was written to the Secretary, Board of Revenue. The Board upon receipt of the letter issued a letter dated the 1st of September, 1971, to all heads of Department inviting nominations after fixing their respective quotas. A copy of this letter is Annexure B to the counter-affidavit. The quota fixed for the Public Health Engineering Department, of the Government of Bihar out of 48 was 3, 2 for general and and 1 for a member of the Scheduled caste or tribe. In pursuance of the letter (Annexure B) the Chief Engineer of the said Department recommended the names of the petitioner and respondent No. 6, in order of preference, placing the petitioner as first and the said respondent as second, and recommended the name of respondent No. 9 to the special quota of the scheduled caste and tribe- His recommendation is dated the 12th of October, 1971, and a copy of it is Annexure 2 to the writ application. The Deputy Secretary of the Department gave his note on the 13th of October, 1971, and suggested the adding of the name of respondent No. 8 in the general quota, and, keeping in view the respective seniority, he recommended that the third place in general quota may be assigned to respondent No. 8. The Secretary of the Department by his note dated the 13th of October, 1971, agreed with the suggestion of the Deputy Secretary. A copy of these notes is Annexure 3 to the writ application.

3. Annexure 5 is a copy of the letter dated the 14th of October, 1971, written by two members of the Bihar Legislative Assembly to


























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top