Shailesh Kumar Sinha vs Bihar State Electricity Board and Others

Ravi S. Dhavan, C.J. and Aftab Alam, J.—This is a Letters Patent Appeal by which the Appellant has impugned the judgment on the writ petition C.W.J.C. No. 366 of 1994; Shailesh Kumar Sinha v. Bihar State Electricity Board and Ors. The judgment of a learned Judge is dated 24.5.1995. Certain increments available to the employees of the Bihar State Electricity Board after having been certified as being proficient in Hindi, initially granted were recalled for adjustment, thus the Petitioner filed the writ petition. The Petitioner was unsuited on the writ petition basically on the grounds that he had been asked by the Bihar State Electricity Board to show proof that he had passed the examination regarding proficiency in Hindi. The best document which could be shown was the service book of the Petitioner. Despite being reminded several times to make available the service book the Petitioner took one pretext or the other in preventing the inspection of the service book. Summing up, the Petitioner evaded reply on the aspect whether (a) he had passed the examination regarding proficiency in Hindi and (b) evaded production of the service book where these matters would have been recorded in routine. Consequently, any increment which had been granted for proficiency in Hindi was recalled and was being adjusted against future emoluments.

By the present appeal the Appellant submits that in identical and similar cases an appeal filed by the Bihar State Electricity Board before the Supreme Court was dismissed.

The Bihar State Electricity Board has itself placed this judgment before the court. The contention is that the matter before the Supreme Court had nothing to do with the facts and circumstances of the Appellant''s case. It is contended that in matters before the Supreme Court there was nothing in issue about any of the Petitioners having kept away the essential record which record would have prima facie shown whether proficiency in Hindi had been possessed by the candidate concerned. In the present case, it is contended on behalf of the Bihar State Electricity Board, the best document which would have shown whether the Appellant was proficient in Hindi was the service book. The Appellant would not answer the inquiries made from him whether he had passed the examination in context and, further, when required to submit his service book he kept it away for one reason or another. The Appellant, ultimately, did pass the examination but that was in 1994. This in itself is a circumstance on record that previously the Appellant had no proficiency in Hindi so as to claim an increment as of right. The claim could not be substantiated on record. The matter before the Supreme Court is entirely different.

The last contention on behalf of the Appellant was that he was not aware of the circumstance that he was obliged to be proficient in Hindi. His contention is that there was no formal declaration in the gazette which required an obligation from him to he proficient in Hindi. In so far as this aspect is concerned, the Appellant may take recourse to Part XVII of the Constitution of India and in so far as the State of Bihar is concerned he cannot run away from the situation that Hindi is an official language.

The Petitioner had been unsuited in the writ petition as he prevented the authority to look into his service book on the aspect whether he had passed the Hindi noting and drafting examination. The learned Judge was of the opinion that the Petitioner could not be given latitude to take advantage of his own wrong.

This Court is of the opinion that the learned Judge is not in error in entering the judgment on the writ petition. This appeal is dismissed.