IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.456 of 2003 1.JAI KANT SHARMA son of Sri Madhesh dutt Sharma resident of Village+P.O. Kudarwadha, P.S. Garkha, District-Saran (Chapra). 2.Sakaleshwar Singh, son of Sri Bal Mukund Singh, resident of Jharinimia, P.S. Sikidala, P.S. Patan District- Pamau. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Chief Secretary Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2.The D.G. of Police, Bihar, Patna. 3.The A.D.G, B.M.P. Patna. 4.The D.I.G. Central Range B.M.P. Patna. 5.The Commandant, Sri Subhash Chandra Singh, B.M.P.14, Patna. ----------- 3 10/7/2009 Heard counsel for the petitioners and counsel for the State. Prayer of the two petitioners in this writ application reads as follows:- “That this is an application for issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for his appointment on the post of learner Driver constable and to appoint him on the post of driver constable from the date from which other co-constables and junior constables have been appointed driver constables and for grant of all consequential benefits including seniority in the cadre of driver constable.” Counsel for the petitioner with reference to the aforementioned prayer would submit that when the two petitioners were selected for undergoing training programme for the post of driver by order of the competent authority dated 28.2.2001 the subsequent decision of the Commandant dated 18th August, 2001 recalling them from such training on the ground that they were having specialized Commando training and as such it was in the 2 interest of the department to utilize their services as driver, is based on hostile discrimination, inasmuch as, five constables, namely, Birendra Pratap Singh, Ezhar Hussain, Deepak Kumar, Lalshaheb Prasad and Ajit Choudhary, details whereof has been given in paragraph 9 of the writ application, were not only allowed to complete training course for drivers but had been also absorbed against the post of constable driver though they too were having specialized Commando training. Counsel for the petitioner in this regard has pointed out that this specific plea of hostile discrimination has been indirectly admitted by the respondents in the counter affidavit and therefore this Court should direct the respondents for absorption of the petitioners against the post of constable driver. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, with reference to the counter affidavit would submit that the administrative discretion exercised by the commandant, being the Unit head of the Force for utilization of services of the petitioners in the law and order duty can not be questioned by the petitioners. He has also submitted that the petitioners have a chequered career and a poor past service records of being subject to allegation of misconduct for which a departmental proceeding was also undertaken against them and as such administrative exigencies and the decision to allot work as per the need of the Force taken by the controlling authority of the Unit head should not be lightly interfered by this Court. 3 After hearing the parties and perusing the material on record, this Court is battled and shocked to find the way in which the authorities of the police department particularly the Commandant, the head of the Force at the district level, are conducting themselves. It defies all sense of logic as to how a Commando constable for whose training the Government spends a considerable amount of public revenue can be allowed to absorbed or posted on the post of a driver. It may be true that the petitioner’s selection for the post of driver was cancelled by the Commandant on administrative reasons, namely, pendency of the departmental proceeding against them, but then this Court would still find it difficult to accept that if the said departmental proceeding could not become a bar in sending the petitioners for a course in Driver’s training, how could the pendency of the alleged departmental proceeding against the petitioners could weigh in recalling them for driver’s training. In any event, it is not clear from paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit as against whom out of two petitioners the departmental proceeding no. 10/99 was drawn and was said to be pending on the date of filing of the counter affidavit, i.e, 13.3.2003. This Court, in fact, is not at all satisfied with the explanation given in the counter affidavit and therefore this Court would direct the Additional Director General, of Bihar Military Police to himself look into the matter and find out as to whether there is any policy of the government or provision in the police manual for absorption of the specialized Commando trained 4 Constable against the post of driver constable and whether the practice adopted by the Commandant for utilization of Commando trained constable as driver is in the interest of the State Government. In order to expedite the matter, this Court would direct the petitioners to file a comprehensive representation within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and the Additional Director General, B.M.P., respondent no.3, should address himself to the issue raised by the petitioners and pass a reasoned order within a period of next three months. With the above observations/directions this application is disposed of. Abhay Kumar (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)