The creation of a basic cadre in the Animal Husbandry Service requires the approval of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Finance Department, and the Council of Ministers, and must be in accordance with the relevant service rules.

N.P.Singh, J.

1. The petitioner has filed this writ application for quashing a communication dated 21-11-1986 issued by the special Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries, saying that the Bihar Animal Husbandry Service Class I (special Category) shall be a basic cadre of the said Department. A copy of the said communication is Annexure-7. The petitioner has also questioned the validity of a notification dated 3-12-1987 issued by the same Department notifying a gradation list of officers directly appointed or promoted to the newly created cadre of the Bihar Animal Husbandry Service Class I (Special Category). A copy of that notification is A.nnexure-13.

2. The petitioner was appointed in the Bihar Animal Husbandry Service Class-I by a notification dated 6-7-1966 issued by the Department of Animal Husbandry. Respondent No. 5 was appointed as Class III Officer in Bihar Animal Husbandry Service. He joined in the year 1972. On 7-6-1975 the Department notified a final gradation list of the officers in Bihar Animal Husbandry Service Class I. In that gradation list the name of the petitioner was mentioned against serial No. 37. As on that date respondent No. 5 was in Bihar Animal Husbandry Service Class-III, his name did not figure in the said list. On the recommendation of the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) respondent No. 5 was appointed in Class II service in the year 1976, against a reserved post.

3. An advertisement was published on 1-6-1977 by the Commission inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment against a temporary post of Special Officer, Intensive Cattle Development Block in the pay-scale of Rs. 1060--1580 in Animal Husbandry Service Class-I (Special Category) reserved for the members of the Scheduled Caste. Pursuant to that advertisement respondent No. 5 and others filed applications. On the basis of the recommendation made by the Commission the said respondent was appointed on 9-1-1978 against the aforesaid post by process of direct recruitment.

4. The petitioner, who was continuing in Bihar Animal Husband Service Class-I since the year 1966 was promoted on 21-11-1985 to senior selection grade in the pay scale of Rs. 1575--2300 with the concurrence of the Commission with effect from 1-1-1977. Later by another notification issued on 3-12-1987 the date of the promotion of the petitioner to senior selection grade was changed from 1-1-1977 to 1-2-1983. It has been asserted that the aforesaid decision was taken by the State Government without consulting the Commission and without approval of the Council of Ministers. Yet another notification was issued on 8-1-1988 changing the date of the promotion of the petitioner to senior selection grade from 1-2-1983 to 1-4-1981. It has been alleged on behalf of the petitioner that contradictory notifications were being issued in respect of the promotion of the petitioner to Senior Selection Grade only to make respondent No. 5 senior to the petitioner.

5. On behalf of the petitioner it was alleged that even by changing the date of the promotion to the senior selection grade of the petitioner from 1-1-1977 to 1-4-1981 when the object or making respondent No. 5 senior to the petitioner was not achieved, then the impugned notification dated 21-11-1986 was issued by the Department saying that the Bihar Animal Husbandry Service Class I (Special Category) shall be deemed to be a basic Cadre. After that the other notification dated 3-12-1987 was issued by the same Department purporting to prepare a gradation list of six officers in the Bihar Animal Husbandry Service Class I (Special Category). Amongst the six officers mentioned in that notification the name of respondent No. 5 was mentioned against serial No. 1 and that of the petitioner against serial No. 2.

6. On behalf of the petitioner it has been stated that two impugned notifications aforesaid dated 21-11-1986 and 3-12-1987 have been issued illegally