IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7940 of 2006 AMANULLAH, SON OF LATE SYED AMIRUDDIN, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA – SAMANPURA, P.S. SHASTRINAGAR, DISTRICT – PATNA, AT PRESENT POSTED AS STEON SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VILIGANCE INVESTIGATION BUREAU, PATNA. ………. PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE VIGILANCE COMMISSIONER, CABINET (VILIGANCE) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, 12/A, JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU MARG (BAILEY ROAD), PATNA – 800001. 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, VIGILANCE INVESTIGATION BUREAU, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, VIGILANCE INVESTIGATION BUREAU, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, 6 CIRCULAR ROAD, PATNA – 800001. 5. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, VIGILANCE INVESTIGATION BUREAU, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, 6 CIRCULAR ROAD, PATNA – 800001. 6. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE INVESTIGATION BUREAU, 6 CIRCULAR ROAD, PATNA – 800001. …… RESPONDENTS. FOR THE PETITIONER : - MR. SHYAMA PRASAD MUKHERJEE, SR. ADV MR. SHANTI PRATAP, ADVOCATE FOR THE STATE : - MR. BINOD KUMAR, ACT TO SC 16. ----------- 09/ 23.03.2011 Petitioner’s prayer is for a direction to the respondents to consider his case for promotion to the post of Inspector of Police with effect from 30.06.1981 and extend all consequential benefits to him flowing out of aforesaid promotion. Petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Steno in the Vigilance Department, Patna in the year, 1972 and gave his joining on 21.06.1972. He remained working on that post till 29.06.1974, One post of Steno Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police in the 2 Vigilance Investigation Bureau fell vacant and for filling up this vacancy process of appointment was initiated. Petitioner having all requisite qualification also applied for the post of Steno Assistant Sub- Inspector of Police, as a departmental candidate. He was selected and appointed as Steno Assistant Sub- Inspector of Police. He gave joining on this post on 30.06.1974. In the year, 1982 he was promoted to the post of Steno Sub-Inspector of Police with effect from 01.04.1982 and he continued to discharge his duties on this post to full satisfaction of his superiors. One Parsuram Singh, who was appointed as Constable in the year, 1964, promoted to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police on officiating basis with effect from 01.08.1975, was subsequently promoted to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police with effect from March, 1976 and finally promoted to the post of Inspector of Police with effect from 01.09.1981. Petitioner’s case is that in the gradation list of Sub- Inspector of Police prepared and published by the department, initially he was placed below this Parsuram Singh, but he filed his objection to the 3 provisional gradation list and considering his seniority, he was placed in between serial nos. 15 and 17 above Parsuram Singh. He was placed at serial no. 16, Laxmi Narain Singh and Parsuram Singh were placed below him. Petitioner’s grievance is that juniors to him, like, Parsuram Singh and Laxmi Narain Singh have been given promotion to the post of Inspector of Police with effect from 01.09.1981 but his case was not considered, despite recommendation made by the then Superintendent of Police, Shri J.K. Khanna. Specific case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as Steno, but subsequently his post was converted to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police from Steno Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police vide office order no. 737/81 contained in Memo No. 8858 dated 3.9.1984, as such being senior from Laxmi Narain Singh and Parsuram Singh, he should have been given promotion to the post of Inspector of Police with effect from 01.09.1981. Since the respondents have ignored his seniority in granting promotion to the post of Inspector of Police, as such a direction be issued for considering his case for promotion to the post of 4 Inspector of Police with effect from 30.06.1981, when juniors to the petitioner were granted promotion and the petitioner also became eligible for the same. The Additional Director General of Police, Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Respondent No. 4 has filed counter affidavit denying the allegations made by the petitioner. It has been stated that there are two different cadres of Constable; one of Steno-typist and another of general cadre of Constables. Petitioner was appointed as Steno-typist in the year, 1972. He again applied for the post of Steno Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police in the year, 1974 and he was appointed on this post and confirmed on this post on 30.7.1976. He was promoted to the post of Steno Sub-Inspector of Police with effect from 01.04.1982. Under the provisions of Police Manaul the post of petitioner in the Steno cadre was converted to the general cadre and he was posted as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police with effect from 30.6.1979. This conversion was on ad hoc basis subject to the condition that he will have to succeed in P.T.C. training. Petitioner was deputed for P.T.C. training in the Session 1989-90, but he did not succeed in the 5 P.T.C. training, he failed in law with books and law without books papers. Petitioner, finding that he has not been able to succeed in P.T.C. training, himself requested for his reversion to the post of Steno S.I. from the general cadre. As per petitioner’s request he was placed/reverted to the post of Steno Sub-Inspector of Police. This is the reason that petitioner was denied promotion to the post of Inspector of Police general cadre. It has also been stated that petitioner being in the Steno cadre cannot claim for his promotion to the post of Inspector of Police in the general cadre. Petitioner’s seniority in the Steno cadre, has nothing to do with seniority of persons in the general cadre. Petitioner might have been senior to Parsuram Singh and Laxmi Narain Singh while they were in Steno cadre, but subsequently they were promoted to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police and further to the post of Inspector of Police in the general cadre as they successfully passed the P.T.C. training examination. Cases of those persons are different from the case of petitioner. Petitioner while replying the statement 6 made in the counter affidavit has admitted that he failed in P.T.C. training, but his objection is that he was allowed only one opportunity for P.T.C. training for the Session 1989-90, thereafter he was never sent for P.T.C. training. It has also been stated that several Steno A.S.Is., who could not pass P.T.C. training examination were given promotion to the post of Steno Sub-Inspector of Police as also general Sub-Inspector of Police. In support of this contention, he has given reference of order no. 88/06 contained in Memo No. 502 dated 02.03.2006 and departmental order no. 110/06 contained in Memo No. 595 dated 16.3.2006 issued under the signature of Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Departmental, Govt. of Bihar. These letters have been annexed as Annexure-14 and 14/1 with reply to the counter affidavit. On perusal of these two letters, it transpires that through Annexure-14 Nagendra Kumar Pandey, Shurutidhar Pathak, Dayanand Pd. Verma and Mahesh Pd. Dubey were promoted to the post of A.S.I. of Police on notional basis and through Annexure-14/1 they were given promotion to the post of S.I. of Police 7 in general cadre on ad hoc basis, subject to the condition that in case they will not clear P.T.C. training they will be reverted back to the Steno cadre. Considering the pleading of the parties, I find that petitioner was not appointed in the general cadre, he was appointed in Steno cadre. He was promoted on the post of Sub-Inspector of Police in general cadre on ad hoc basis, but was never confirmed on this post for the reason that he did not clear P.T.C. training, which is mandatory for confirmation on conversion from one cadre to another cadre. Petitioner finding his inability to clear P.T.C. training himself made a request for his reversion to Steno cadre and he was reverted to the Steno cadre. His conversion to the general cadre of A.S.I. with effect from 30.6.1979 vide office order no. 737/84 was ad hoc promotion, that was not confirmed. He remained A.S.I. till 3.9.1984; it was never protested by him. It is also evident that he was never confirmed in the rank of Steno S.I. and he remained A.S.I. till 3.9.1984. For all these reasons Bihar Police Manual Volume III Appendix 42 Rule 5 clearly indicates that Steno A.S.I. will be reverted to 8 general cadre with minimum 5 years service as Steno A.S.I. It means that on the post of Steno A.S.I. the incumbent must have been confirmed and continuously worked for minimum 5 years. So far petitioner is concerned, he was never substantially promoted to the rank of A.S.I., and he was sent for P.T.C. training as A.S.I. in the year, 1989 in which he failed. The petitioner was not given promotion in general cadre of S.I. as he did not possess requisite qualification till 1991. Since he was unfit to hold rank of A.S.I. in general cadre as such there was no reason for his promotion to the post of S.I. So far Parsuram Singh and Laxmi Narain Singh are concerned, they belonged to entirely different cadre and there cannot be any comparison of seniority in between persons belonging to different cadres. For all these reasons, I do not find that respondents have committed any illegality by not promoting the petitioner to the post of S.I. in general cadre. One can be promoted to the post of S.I. only when he is in general cadre. Petitioner himself requested for his reversion to Steno cadre. There is no 9 reason for his promotion to the post of S.I. in general cadre. For reasons stated above, I do not find any merit in this application. This application is dismissed. DKS/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)