IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2310 of 2010 1. Ajay Kumar Singh S/O Sri Damodar Singh R/O Vill.- Narhi, P.O. Narhi Chandi, P.S. Chandi, Distt.- Bhojpur Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Secretary, Home (Police Deptt.), Bihar, Patna 3. The Director General Of Police-Cum-Inspector General, Bihar, Patna 4. The Inspector General Of Police (Administration), Bihar, Patna 5. The Department Of Personnel & Administrative Reforms, Bihar, Patna ---------------------------------- 3. 02.09.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner was an applicant for the post of Sub Inspector in response to Advertisement. No. 4 of 1985. The appointment was delayed on account of litigation leading to publication of merit list on 5.8.1989.The respondents acknowledged omission of his name at serial 37 attributable to the printers devil. A corrigendum followed on 16.2.1990 after he filed CWJC No. 9841 of 1989 placing him at serial position 37 of the merit list. His grievance is that commensurate seniority was not being given to him as the delayed appointment was attributable to the respondents. His juniors were being considered and promoted. A counter affidavit has been filed by the AIG (I) of Police. It states at para 5 as follows: “However the petitioner has been given the seniority on Sl. No. 1313 (A.A.) vide Memo No. 1320/P-2 dated 02.03.07 of Police Headquarters with effect from 04.08.1989 along with the juniors to the petitioner.” Para 6 of the counter affidavit then states that “seniority has to be arranged the marks of P.T.C. examination to the marks of the written competitive examination.” The English language used is incomprehensible. The incomprehensible use of the English language by the respondents leaves this Court guessing if the issue of seniority in the merit list is ultimately subject to the date of passing the PTC examination. The Court leaves the question unanswered. The Court expects the Secretary (Home) Police Department to ensure that incomprehensible English language is not used by the respondents in Court proceedings. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that if the petitioner has been given his due seniority from 4.8.1989 it is required to be acted upon by placing him appropriately in his status and designated above his immediate junior. There is no gainsaying that if the respondents in their counter affidavit have assigned seniority to the petitioner from 4.8.1989, they are now required to give him his status and designation commensurate to the same above his junior. Let it be so done within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. It is expected that while dealing with this matter the respondents shall adequately consider the issue of grant of ACP to the petitioner also so that the litigation is shortened and this Court is not unnecessarily burdened with avoidable litigation. The writ application stands disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)