Dr. J. N. Dubey, J.

This writ petition is directed against the order dated 12.7.1995 of the respondent no. 1, the State of Bihar, appointing respondent no. 4, Hari Sharan Srivastava as Director, Dairy Development.

2. It appears that the petitioner, Amiya Chakravarty, was appointed as Dairy Overseer Class III on 20.8.1959 and was promoted to the post of Dairy Supervisor Class III on 9.5.1962. Later on, he was promoted to the post of Dairy Extension Assistant on 18.10.1965. He was sent on deputation as Assistant Manager Class I in the Bihar State Dairy Corporation (for short 'the Corporation)' in the year 1975. He returned to his parent department in 1979 and was promoted to the post of Dairy Extension officer in Bihar Animal Husbandry Service (for short the BAH Service') Class II on 14.1.1981. He was posted as Deputy Director in the BAH Service Class I with effect from 29.9.1988 in his own pay scale. On 25.4.1989, he was recommended by Departmental Promotion Committee for regular promotion with effect from 1.5.1987. On the other hand, the respondent no. 4 was appointed as Dairy Engineer, the BAH Service Class II Junior Branch on 27.11.1964 and was promoted to the post of Dairy Engineer, the BAH Service Class II Senior Branch on 28.2.1971. He was sent on deputation to the Corporation on 8.2.1975. He resigned from the post of Dairy Engineer, the BAH Service Class II Senior Branch on 1.8.1975 and became regular employee of the Corporation. The Corporation was liquidated on 10.2.1984 and the respondent no. 4 was appointed as Dairy Engineer in the BAH Service Class I on 30.10.1986 on adhoc basis on 14.1.1988, on the recommendation of the Bihar Public Service Commission, he was appointed on the said post on regular basis on 1.12.1990, he was given the additional charge of the post of Regional Joint Director on 1.11.1992, the Bihar Public Service Commission recommended him for appointment on the post of Director, Dairy Development. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed this writ petition. On 12.7.1995, the respondent no. 4 was appointed as Director, Dairy Development and, therefore, the petitioner got the writ petition amended to incorporate the relief for quashing his appointment.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the appointment of the respondent no. 4 on the post of Dairy Engineer in the BAH Service Class I was illegal. According to him, services of the employees of the BAH Service Class I were governed by the Bihar and Orissa Veterinary Service Class I Recruitment Rules, 1935 (for short 'the Recruitment Rules'), which provided only two sources of recruitment in the service viz. by promotion from the BAH Service Class II and direct recruitment. There was no provision for absorbing an outsider in the BAH Service Class I and, therefore, the respondent no. 4 could not be legally appointed on the post of Dairy Engineer after liquidation of the Corporation. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the Recruitment Rules are not applicable to the BAH Services Class I, therefore, the respondent no. 1 was perfectly justified in appointing the respondent no. 4 on the post of Dairy Engineer in pursuance of its policy decision dated 10.2.1984. He further contended that even assuming that the appointment of the respondent no. 4 on the post of Dairy Engineer was not strictly in accordance with the Recruitment Rules, it could not be challenged by the petitioner after a lapse of 8 years.

5. In Dr. Ram Raj Ram -versus- the State of Bihar and others, 1996 (9) SCC 178, the Supreme Court has held that the services of Department of Animal Husbandry in the State are still governed by the Recruitment Rules. Since there is no provision for absorption of an outsider in the BAH Service Class I, the appointment of the respondent no. 4 on the post of Dairy Engineer was illegal but it was neither malafide nor against th