IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9271 of 1998 Raj Kumar Sharma, Son of Jagdish Sharma, resident of village and P.O. Bhori, P.S. Tekari, District-Gaya. –Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar through Special Secretary, Home Police Department, Bihar. 2. The Director General Board through its Chairman-cum-Director General of Police and Inspector General of Police, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Inspector General of Police (Administration), Bihar. 4. The Inspector General, Special Crime Branch, Bihar, Patna. –Respondents. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Siya Ram Shahi, Adv. For the State : Mr. Ranjan Kumar, AC to AAG-IV. ----------- 04 01.12.2010 The petitioner was appointed constable matriculate on 25.06.1959. He was confirmed as Assistant Sub Inspector of Police on 01.03.1973. He was then asked to officiate as Sub Inspector of Police to which post he was confirmed on 01.03.1981. The petitioner superannuated on 01.07.1988. On having come to know that some of his juniors, namely, Jamuna Yadav and others had been given promotion, he moved this Court seeking promotion on parity of reasoning and parity of facts. In the counter affidavit, the stand of the respondents now is that Jamuna Yadav and others were given promotion pursuant to judgment and order of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.2328 of 1990 decided on 20th December, 1991, which was not interfered in L.P.A. or by the Apex Court in appeal. The basis of the judgment of this Court is to be found in paragraph-22,23,24 and culminating in paragraph-25, which is quoted hereunder:- - 2 - “….In such view of the matters, I am of the opinion that petitioners are entitled to be considered for promotion to the rank of Inspector taking into consideration their officiating period in the post of S.I….” If one compares the case history of the petitioner of the said writ petition and the petitioner in the present writ petition, it would appear that petitioner was confirmed before this writ petitioner but was not considered for promotion similarly, which has brought the petitioner to this Court. As noted above in the counter affidavit, it is stated that those persons were given promotion because of the judgment in their favour by this Court but now the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar and others Vs. Kameshwar Prasad Singh and another with State of Bihar and others Vs. Brij Bihari Prasad Singh and Indra Nand Mishra and others Vs. State of Bihar and others since reported in AIR 2000 Supreme Court 2306 having come the officiating period cannot be taken into account for the purposes of promotion and, therefore, the petitioner cannot now be given promotion on parity of reasoning or parity of facts. Having considered the matter, in my view, the position is clear. If the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar and others Vs. Brij Bihari Prasad Singh had not come then - 3 - petitioner could rightly claim the same benefits which Jamuna Yadav and others got but that principle having not been approved by the Apex Court in a later judgment this Court cannot ignore the later Apex Court judgment and grant relief to the petitioner. Mr. Siya Ram Shahi, learned counsel for the petitioner then submits that equality must be maintained. Jamuna Yadav was in the same service and a colleague of the petitioner, if he was granted the benefit, why should the petitioner be deprived thereof. This concept is clearly answered in the case of State of Bihar and others Vs. Kameshwar Prasad Singh (supra) in paragraph-30 itself wherein it has been clearly laid down that the concept of equality as envisaged under Article-14 of the Constitution is a positive concept which cannot be enforced in a negative manner. In other words, an illegality or a wrong committed in favour of one cannot be perpetuated in favour of others. Thus, all I can say is the petitioner has missed the bus. However, Mr. Shahi points out that as noted in the facts above, petitioner was confirmed as Sub Inspector on 01.03.1981 and he superannuated on 01.07.1988 and in between if the department has given promotion to any similar person who was confirmed on 01.03.1981 or thereafter then the department should extend the same benefit to the petitioner without taking into account any officiating period whatsoever. Here, Mr. Shahi may have a claim but foundational facts lack. - 4 - Considering all these facts, I direct the Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Bihar to look into this aspect of the matter and if it is found that any person who was a confirmed Sub Inspector of Police on or after 01.03.1981 was granted promotion to the Post of Inspector of Police before petitioner superannuated then the petitioner would be considered for promotion even though he has superannuated. With these observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)