IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14804 of 2007 CHANDRAKET NARAIN SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 4. 24.06.2008 Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 22.10.2007 at Annexure 6 by which he has been reverted to the post of Computer from the post of Clerk on the premise that his promotion from Technical Post to a Non-Technical post of Clerk was contrary to law as held by this Court in its judgment reported in 2008 (2) PLJR 371 as affirmed by the Supreme Court. Learned Counsel submits that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Computer in the year 1970. The post was not a technical post and did not require any technical qualification for appointment. Both the posts of Computer and Clerk are grade III posts with a minor difference in salary. Reliance is further placed on an order of this Court in CWJC No. 14652 of 2005 to contend that the petitioner is similarly situated inasmuch as he is sought to be reverted on erroneous grounds after nearly 25 years. Lastly it was submitted that earlier also the order of this promotion to the post of Clerk was recalled which was set aside by this Court on 1.11.1983 in CWJC no. 2585 of 1983 and which has attained finality. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents which seeks to support the order of reversion in view of judgment of this Court as noticed above. Learned Counsel for the State further relies upon an order of this Court in CWJC 15314 of 2007 holding the 2 post of Computer to be a technical post with reference to a Government letter dated 4.1.1993. Shorn of all controversies raised by the parties, the admitted fact that emerges is that earlier also the petitioner was sought to be reverted from the post of Clerk to the post of Computer by an order dated 18.5.1983. The petitioner assailed the same in CWJC No. 2585 of 1983. This Court quashed the order of reversion as being contrary to law in as much as no opportunity was given before reducing the petitioner in rank. Despite liberty granted by the Court to proceed afresh in accordance with law the respondents did not chose to do so. The order of the Division Bench was allowed to attain finality inter parties. The orders of the Court are meant to be complied and not to be flouted. The respondents cannot be permitted to act in teeth of the earlier order of the Division Bench by placing reliance on any subsequent orders of this Court passed in another case with which the petitioner had no concern. In any event the present order of reversion dated 22.10.2007 suffers from the same vice as the order dated 18.5.1983 set aside by this Court in as much as no opportunity to show cause has been given to the petitioner prior to the same. In 1998) 9 SCC 138 Authorised Officer (Land Reforms) Vrs M.M.Krishnamurthy Chetty, the lands of the respondents were declared surplus. The High Court set aside the order and remanded for fresh consideration in light of another decision of the High Court. While the matter was pending before the appellant the Supreme Court reversed that judgment of the High Court. The appellant then decided the matter in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court. The 3 respondent challenged the same before the High Court and contended that in terms of the order of remand the appellant was required to decide the matter in accordance with the High Court judgment as the order of remand was not challenged by him and had therefore become final. It was not permissible for the appellant to rely on the judgment of the Supreme Court. The High Court upheld the contention and set aside the order of the appellant. The Apex Court dismissing the appeal in the relevant extract of Para 2 of the judgment held as follows:- “2. ……… The order passed by the High Court directing the authorized officer to examine the dispute in the light of the judgment of the High Court in the case of Naganatha Ayyar Vrs Authorised Officer became final although the judgment on which the grievance had to be examined itself was reversed later by this Court. We find no fault with the reasoning of the High Court. It is well settled that even orders which may not be strictly legal become final and are binding between the parties if they are not challenged before the superior courts…..” In (2006) 8 SCC 662, Union of India Vrs Madras Telephones (SC & ST) Social Welfare Association, in a dispute of seniority while the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court held that those who qualified in the departmental examination earlier were entitled to be promoted prior to those who qualified later irrespective of the year of their initial recruitment and the Special Leave Petition against which was dismissed leading to grant of seniority in terms thereof, a similar issue arose from the Madras Central Administrative Tribunal which 4 held that the year of recruitment for the purpose of seniority was extraneous and irrelevant and directed the eligibility list to be arranged according to passing of the qualifying examination which came to be set aside by the Supreme Court in another SLP. In consequence those who had got the benefit of promotion ion the earlier litigation inter parties were sought to be effected in light of the subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court. It was held at Paragraph 21 of the judgment as follows:- “21. Having regard to the above observations and clarifications we have no doubt that such of the applicant whose claim to seniority and consequent promotion on the basis of the principles laid down in the Allahabad High Court judgment in Parmanand Lal case have been upheld or recognized by the Court or the Tribunal by judgment and order which have attained finality will not be adversely affected by the contrary view now taken in the judgment Madras Telephones. Since the right of such applicants were determined in a duly constituted proceeding, which determination has attained finality, a sub sequent judgment of a Court or Tribunal taking a contrary view will not adversely affect the applicants in whose cases the orders have attained finality. We order accordingly.” The impugned order of reversion dated 22.10.207 is accordingly quashed and the writ application is allowed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.) 5