By virtue of the Notification No. 879, dated 28.02.2014 (Annexure – 5), five persons came to be appointed in different Power Holding Companies as Director (Projects) or Director (Operations). Since the petitioner, one of the applicants, was not selected or appointed, he wants quashing of the notification, especially relating to Respondent No. 8 as Director (Operations), South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited as well as appointment of Respondent No. 9 as Director (Projects), North Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited.

2. The allegation is that the selection process was not based on any kind of parameters, and pick and choose method was adopted to select candidates of the personal like or dislike of the High Powered Committee, rather than on objectivity. The records reveal that subjectivity has prevailed, as it does not disclose the yard-stick used. This can never be permitted in matters of selection and appointment on a public post.

3. Short facts are that an Advertisement No. 1626 was issued by the Department of Energy, Government of Bihar for appointment on the post of Directors in Power Utilities Company. The advertisement indicated the posts, which were open at the level of Director (Projects) and (Operation). The qualification and experience for such posts was specified by the respondents which they were looking for etc. etc.

4. The advertisement did beget response from interested candidates, which included the present petitioner, who wanted to be considered for the post of Director (Operations) as well as Director (Projects). It is his case that he fulfilled the requirements for both the posts. Petitioner was invited for an interview before the Board, headed by the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. Then followed issuance of Annexure – 5, where the notification indicating names of selected candidates has been notified, which did not include the petitioner.

5. Petitioner attacks the selection and especially of Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 on many a grounds. One of them being that both the persons had incurred punishment of withholding of two increments without cumulative effect for act of negligence and dereliction of duty. The punishment orders are Annexure – 6 and 6/A. Deliberately neither of them disclosed this fact as was the obligation under the application or if not misrepresented the facts. Petitioner’s status as a scheduled-caste was ignored, so was his seniority. Both the private respondents are way way below in the seniority position.

6. Petitioner, aggrieved by the decision, contained in Annexure-7, filed a detailed representation before the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of Power Holding Company as well as Principal Secretary, Finance; Principal Secretary, General Administration; and the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. But, since no cognizance was taken on his grievance, he decided to file the present writ application.

7. After hearing the parties to the dispute the Court directed the State counsel to produce the original record relating to the selection to verify actual state of affairs as well as the procedure and process, which was adopted by the so called High Powered Committee, consisting of the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar; Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Bihar; Principal Secretary, General Administration; Secretary, Energy; and Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Bihar State Power Holding Company Ltd.

8. The Committee met on 16.02.2014, where the Principal Secretary, Finance; Principal Secretary, Energy-cum-Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Bihar State Power Holding Company Ltd.; Principal Secretary, General Administration participated and the meeting was chaired by the Chief Secretary. The extract of the minutes is available in the file at page 183, which is File No. 58/2013, Part-II.

9. The Court meticulously went through the minutes, so recorded. One thing which stands out is that one Sandeep Pondrik, Secretary, Energy was playing a dual role