IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3205 of 2011 Mahatam Singh SONOF LATE CHHEDI SINGH RESIDENT OF CHANDUI, P.S. KUDRA, DISTRICT KAIMUR (BHABHUA) Versus 1. The State Of Bihar THROUGH THE SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 2. DIRECTOR GENERAL CUM INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (SPECIAL BRANCH), BIHAR, PATNA. 4. UNDER SECRETARY, HOME (POLICE), DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 5. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (PERSONNEL/ADM.), BIHAR, PATNA. 6. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (SPECIAL BRANCH), BIHAR, PATNA. 7. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (A), SPECIAL BRANCH, BIHAR, PATNA. ----------- 2 07/07/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Re-agitating issues before the High Court time and again may not be an answer for the petitioner to succeed in an issue which has many a facets. Petitioner has been hammering the respondents to grant him benefit of promotion on the post of Inspector of Police with effect from 03.11.1982 instead of 24.06.1999. The ground for such a demand is that certain juniors to the petitioner had been given the benefit of promotion at the cost of the petitioner. - 2 - There is long history behind such a litigation. That was the period when large number of promotions out of turn on the basis of officiation in office was granted to certain persons by the State of Bihar. Such issue became matter of challenge before the High Court and even before the Supreme Court. Though initially, Patna High Court did hold in favour of granting promotion on the basis of officiation but ultimately the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Kameshwar Prasad Singh reported in 2000(3) PLJR, 81 (S.C.) held that grant of promotion on the basis of officiation has a devastating effect on all those persons who may be senior but have been denied promotion for one reason or the other. Not only this, there are many other reasonings given in the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court including the fact that while the High Court granted such benefit none of the persons who were directly affected by such a decision were made parties or heard. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore, decided that in no case benefit of officiation in matters of promotion can be extended to people of such kind. It lead - 3 - to large scale reversions and re-working of seniority. From the narration as well as reading of the impugned order, this was the background under which certain persons, may be juniors to the petitioner, had been given the benefit of promotion and now the petitioner by way of present writ application wants this Court to do what the Hon’ble Apex Court declined or dis-approved of. The reasonings given in the impugned order passed by the respondents, therefore, is strictly in accordance with the things as they stand after the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The earlier orders of the High Court either of the learned Single Judge or of the Division Bench, to that extent, will have to be read in context of what has been decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and not away from the principles. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the so called recent decision rendered in L.P.A. No. 905 of 2006 decided on 2.09.2008 has to be read in light of the principles decided by the Supreme Court because if the decision of the Supreme Court is - 4 - contrary to the decision rendered by this Court, then this Court is bound by the decision of the Apex Court and not by the decision of this Court especially on the ground of it being perincurium. This writ application is dismissed as being devoid of merit and law. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)