IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No. 4434 of 2005 1 DEEPAK KUMAR, son of Late Braj Nandan Prasad, resident of Mohalla _ Postal Park, Indira Nagar, Road No. 1, P.S. – Kankar bagh, District – Patna …………………. Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Director General cum Inspector General of Police, Bihar, Patna 3. The inspector General of Police (head quarteter), Bihar, Patna 4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Personnel), Bihar, Patna 5. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Administration), Bihar, Patna 6. The Superintendent of Police (C), CID, Patna, Bihar ……………… Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Ram Suresh Roy, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pramod Kumar, Adv. For the State: Mr. Rajeev Lochan, AC to GA 9 ***** 03. 07.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner’s prayer is for quashing of Order, contained in Memo No. 1008/P-2, dated 23.03.2005, issued under the signature of the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Personnel), Bihar, Patna, whereby the promotion granted to the petitioner on the post of ASI (Typist), vide letter non. 351/P-2, dated 28.01.2003 had been cancelled and the petitioner has been reverted back to the post of Constable. The impugned order has been challenged by the 2 petitioner on three following specific grounds: (1) The cancellation order is on non-existent ground; (2) In the cancellation order, no reason for cancellation has been shown; and (3) The cancellation order is discriminatory. Petitioner was appointed as a Constable, vide Memo No. 705, dated 26.03.1992 and joined the post of Constable. He received Police Training and was posted at Samastipur District Police. The IG (Administration), Bihar, Patna issued an Order vide Memo No. 3373, dated 03.04.2002, whereby the petitioner was transferred to the Office of Director General of Police, Patna, where he joined and posted in DGP Cell, Headauarter, Bihar, Patna. Petitioner in the meantime, passed Stenographer examination with Computer and Electronic Type Writing, as such he filed his representation on 10.12.2002, before the DGP, Bihar, Patna for promotion as ASI (Typist). Petitioner along with similarly situated Constables, namely, Rajesh Kumar Sinha, Shakil Ahmad and Nilima Sahay was promoted to the post of ASI (Typist) by the Order of Deputy Inspector General of Police (Administration). The petitioner was promoted 3 vide Office Order, bearing Memo No. 351, dated 26.01.2003. For some time, petitioner continued on the promoted post, but an Order was issued on 05.05.2003, vide Memo No. 1559, whereby his promotion to the post of ASI (Typist) was cancelled. The cancellation order was challenged by the petitioner by filing C.W.J.C. No. 7492 of 2003. The Writ Application was allowed vide Order dated 03.12.2003 and the cancellation order was quashed. Petitioner’s joining, however, was not accepted for some time. Subsequently, it was accepted, but another show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 02.08.2004 as to why his promotion to the post of ASI (Typist) be not cancelled. Show- cause was submitted by the petitioner, but his grievance is that without considering it, again vide Order dated 23.05.2005 (Annexure-16), the promotion granted to the petitioner was cancelled and he was reverted to the post of Constable. Three grounds on which the petitioner has challenged impugned order, have been answered in the Counter Affidavit, filed by the Respondents. Regarding the nonest ground, it has been stated that cancellation order was issued considering the fact 4 that the procedure provided in the Police Manual Rule for giving promotion to the post of ASI (Typist) had not been followed. The vacant post of Steno- Typist is filled through two modes, one by direct appointment and another by appointment by way of promotion. Appendix 42 of Bihar Police Manual deals with the recruitment, training, examination and posting of Steno-Typist Assistant Sub-Inspector and Typist, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. Since the petitioner was already in service, in his case, appendix 42, Rule 749 (C)(A) will apply. For filling the vacancies, posts are to be advertised. Persons, who were already in Police Department and trained in Stenography will come in the category (A) for them, there is no age limit. They will apply for the post and have to face the test of minimum speed as provided under the Rule. In case of the petitioner, simply on consideration of his representation the concerned DIG has given him promotion though it is not the procedure for such appointment by way of promotion. It has also been stated that petitioner’s name was never recommended by any Central Selection Board, neither his appointment was in consonance with the Departmental Procedure, as 5 such it was cancelled being no legal promotion. So far the allegation of discrimination made by the petitioner that similarly situated persons, namely, Rajesh Kumar Sinha, Shakil Ahmad and Nilima Sahay are still continuing on promotional post and the petitioner’s promotion has been cancelled, is admitted in para 14 of the Counter Affidavit. The reason for allowing them to continue on promotional post is that since they continued on the promotional post for 13 years, as such no cancellation order or reverting order was passed. This statement in the Counter Affidavit can not be accepted. In case the promotion given to the petitioner was illegal promotion given to others, whose names have been mentioned in the representation, were also illegal. Similar treatment should have been meted to all of them. In case the promotion of petitioner was cancelled and he was reverted back to the post of Constable, persons, such as Rajesh Kumar Sinha, Shakil Ahmad and Nilima Sahay should have also been reverted back to their original posts by canceling their promotion. In case it has not been done, Respondents must issue similar orders in their case also. So far the claim of the petitioner that he 6 should also be allowed to remain on the promotion post like others, can not be allowed as no direction can be issued for perpetuating illegality. The action of the Respondents, giving promotion to the petitioner as well as others was illegal. The promotion order was passed without following the procedure for such promotion in Appendix 42, Rule 749, since it was not followed the promotion of the petitioner had been rightly cancelled and he was reverted back. The Respondents must issue similar orders against those persons, with regard to whom there is an admission in para 14 of the Counter Affidavit. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this Writ Application. It is dismissed. SKM (Mridula Mishra, J.)