IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12819 of 2002 Janardan Prasad Singh, Son of Late Shyam Chandra Prasad Singh, Resident of Village-Mahmada, Police Station- Pusa, District Samastipur. ------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Agriculture Production Commissioner, Bihar Vikash Bhawan, Patna. 3. Additional Secretary, Agriculture Department Vikash Bhawan, Patna. 4. Director, Agriculture, Bihar Vikash Bhawan, Patna. 5. Deputy Secretary, Agriculture, Department, Government of Bihar, Vikash Bhawan, Patna. ------- Respondents ----------- 4 21.5.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. At the outset, counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the petitioner is ill and the rejoinder has to be filed by him in reply to the counter affidavit, this Court should adjourn this case till one week after summer vacation. As this Court, in fact, till date has not received the counter affidavit whereas the counsel for the State would submit that the counter affidavit has been filed in the office, this case is being disposed of without looking into the counter affidavit and in fact on the merit of the case of the petitioner as is borne out from the impugned order itself. 2 In fact the prayer of the petitioner in this writ application filed on 18.11.2002 reads as follows:- 1. That this application is for issuance of a writ of certiorari; (A) Quashing the order issued by Memo no. 2145 dt. 8.6.99, contained in Annexure-7 rejecting the representation of the petitioner dt. 24.12.99 which was filed in pursuance of the order dt. 8.9.97 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1080 of 1997 for correction of seniority list and determination of petitioner’s seniority in the department according to the date of joining and not according to marks obtained by persons, who joined later than the petitioner and affirming its earlier decision issued by Memo no. 1604 dt. 19.4.95. (B) As also for quashing the order issued by Memo No. 1604 dt. 19.4.95, contained in Annexure-4, rejecting the petitioner’s representation dt. 14.3.95 filed in pursuance of the order dt. 1.3.95 passed by this Hon’ble Court in C.W.J.C. No. 10143 of 1993 for correction of seniority list. (C) And consequential reliefs to which this Hon’ble Court may find this petitioner entitled to which are as follows:- 3 I. To issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to place the petitioner in between Sri Chandreshwar Mishra and Sri Rajeswar Prasad Singh no.2 (both retired), who are at serial 210 and 211 respectively in the seniority list published in 1996. (Annexure-5). II. To give promotion/ appointment in Bihar Agriculture Service from May 1968 from when Sri Rajenswar Pd. Singh No.2 and others who jointed later than the petitioner were promoted/ appointed in Bihar Agriculture Service. III. To give Ist time bound promotion with effect from 1.4.1981 on completion of 10 years of service from May 1968 and 2nd time bound with effect from May 1993 on completion of 25 years of service from May 1968 in Bihar Agriculture Service Cadre, in terms of resolution No. 10770 dated 30.12.1981 of the Finance Department, Government of Bihar. IV. To give pay protection of fix pay at part with Sri Rajeshwar Prasad Singh no.2 after giving promotion/ promotion in Bihar Agriculture Service from May 1968. V. To pay interest @ 18% per annum on the amount found due with the Department on account of different promotions. VI. To suitably compensate the 4 petitioner for having suffered financial loss in litigation and mental torture and loss of reputation for being placed below in seniority list below the persons, who joined later than him by making payment of Rs. 50,000/.” This Court would find that the matter relating to fixation of seniority of the petitioner who has retired on 1.11.1998 had been made subject matter of a number of earlier writ petitions filed by him. This Court, in fact, by an order dated 1.3.1995 in CWJC No. 10143 of 1993 had directed the authority to pass a firm order whereafter the authority had passed an order on 19.4.1995 as contained in Annexure-4 to this writ application. In that very order, it was pointed out by the authorities that as a matter of fact the seniority of the petitioner had stood settled by the order of the Director of Agriculture dated 26.2.1971 and yet the petitioner had not assailed it for next 22 years by that point of time while filing of the aforesaid writ petition CWJC No. 10143 of 1993. The petitioner’s unabated effort, however, continued and he had again moved this Court in CWJC No. 1080 of 1997 by making the subsequent 5 draft seniority list dated 10.6.1996, based on the earlier seniority list of 1971, a plank to re-open his seniority and this Court again in its order dated 8.9.1997 had directed the petitioner to file a representation. The impugned order dated 08.06.1999 has been passed on a representation of the petitioner dated 24.12.1997 and the relevant portion thereof reads as follows:- ^^2- bl vkns”k ds vuq”kj.k esa Jh tuknZu izlkn flag] fuyfEcr izkpk;Z] izlkj izf”k{k.k dsUnz] eq”kgjh us fnukad 24-12-97 dks vH;kosnu fn;k gSA vH;kosnu esa mudk dguk gS fd mudk uke ikjLifjd ojh;rk lwph esa dzekad 316 ij vafdr gS ,oa Jh pUns”oj feJ dk dzekad 210 ij vafdr gSA ojh;rk dk fu/kkZj.k ;ksxnku dh frfFk ls fu/kkZfjr gksuk pkfg, vkSj foHkkx }kjk tkjh ojh;rk lwph esa mudk LFkku Jh pUnzs”oj feJ ,oa fcgkj ds d`f’k Lukrdksa ds mij j[kk tk;A mudk ;g Hkh dguk gS fd iwoZ esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa nk;j jhV ;kfpdk la[;k 10143@93 esa ikfjr vkns”k ds vkyksd esa tc mUgksaus vH;kosnu fn;k rks foHkkx us mls ;g dg dj vLohd`r dj fn;k fd izkIrkad ds vk/kkj ij ojh;rk dk fu/kkZj.k fd;k x;k gS] tcfd ;g fu;e fcgkj d`f’k fo”ofo|ky; ls mrh.kZ d`f’k Lukrdksa ij gh ykxw gks ldrk gSA 3- Jh tuknZu izlkn ds mDr nkos dh tkWp ,oa Nkuchu foHkkx dh lafpdk esa miyC/k dkxtkrksa ds vk/kkj ij dh xbZA d`f’k foHkkx ds dk;kZy; vkns”k i= la[;k 315] fnukad 25-2-71 }kjk ikjLifjd ojh;rk dk fu/kkZj.k d`f’k Lukrd ijh{kk esa izkIrkad ds vk/kkj ij fd;k x;k FkkA Jh tuknZu izlkn flag dk izkIrkad 46-08 izfr”kr jgus ds dkj.k mUgsa mDr vkns”k }kjk ojh;rk dzekad 148 ij j[kk x;k gSA Jh tuknZu izlkn flag ds vH;kosnu ls vizR;{k :i ls ;g ijhyf{kr gksrk gS fd os fcgkj ds fo”ofo|ky;ksa ds Nk=ksa ds laca/k esa izkIrkad dks ojh;rk dk vk/kkj ekurs gSa vkSj pwWfd mUgksaus bykgkckn fo”ofo|ky; ls mrh.kZrk izkIr dh gS blfy, fcgkj fo”ofo|ky; ds Nk=ksa ls vyx os vius ojh;rk fu/kkZj.k ds ,PNqd gSA ;g vius vki esa ,d fojks/kkHkk’k gSaA pkgs fcgkj ds fo”o fo|ky; vFkok bykgkckn fo”ofo|ky; ds Nk= gksa] nksuks ds fy, ,d gh ekinaM viuk;k tkuk pkfg, vkSj blh dze esa izkIrkad ds vk/kkj ij mUgsa 1971 esa ojh;rk dzekad 148 ij j[kk x;k FkkA 6 4- foHkkx us izFke ojh;rk lwph 1971 esa izdkf”kr dh gS] ftlesa mudk ojh;rk dzekad 148 gSA ;fn bUgsa bl ojh;rk ij vk/kkfjr dh rks os mDr izdk”ku ds rqjUr ckn vkosnu nsrs] ijUrq mUgksaus izFke vH;kosnu 1993 esa fn;k gSA iwoZ dh ojh;rk ds vk/kkj ij gh o’kZ 1996 dh ojh;rk lwph dzekad 310 ij mudk uke vafdr gSA 5- bUgha vk/kkjksa ij Jh tuknZu izlkn flag us iwoZ esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa jhV ;kfpdk 10143@93 nk;j dh FkhA mDr ;kfpdk esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns”k ij d`f’k funs”kd ,oa Jh feJ dh mifLFkfr esa fnukad 23-3-95 dks lquokbZ gqbZ FkhA lquokbZ esa ;g Li’V gqvk fd d`f’k Lukrdksa dh d`f’k fujh{kd ,oa leku inksa ij fu;qfDr ds QyLo:i mudh ikjLifjd ojh;rk fu/kkZj.k dk vk/kkj lacaf/kr o’kZ dh ijh{kk esa izkIrkad dk izfr”kr gksxk u fd ;ksxnku dh frfFkA 5- mfYyf[kr Lor% Li’V oLrqfLFkfr ds dze esa oknh Jh tuknZu izlkn flag ds fopkjk/khu vH;kosnu esa dksbZ u;k] vU;Fkk rF; mn~Hksfnr ugha gqvk gSA Qyr% ojh;rk fo’k;d iwoZ fu.kZ; dks U;k;ksfpr ,oa fu;fer ekurs gq, jkT; ljdkj us Jh flag ds izlaxk/khu vH;kosnu dks iw.kZ fopkjksijkUr vLohd`r djus dh d`ik dh gSA** From reading of this impugned order, it would transpire that the authority has rejected the claim of the petitioner for his being made senior basically by taking a plea that the seniority of the petitioner had already been settled in the year 1971 and that was never challenged by him. The authority in fact has also gone to other aspects of the matter for fixing the criteria of seniority but then this Court would not look into such aspect because this Court is satisfied with the fact that the seniority of the year 1971 could not have been reopened by the petitioner after a long lapse of time and that the reasons given in the impugned order for rejecting the representation of the 7 petitioner cannot be even looked into in absence of the concerned officers ranking senior to the petitioner at serial no. 210 to 315. Moreover, the petitioner was appointed on 3.6.1958 on a non-gazetted post of Agriculture Inspector at a point of time when there was no merit list and marks obtained in the university examination was made the criteria for fixing inter-se seniority of agricultural graduates. If on such basis the seniority was fixed and acted upon from 1958 onwards, the same could not have been disturbed in 1999 causing upheaval of all the promotion given during the active service period of the petitioner i.e. 1958 to 1998. As a matter of fact, the petitioner after retirement from service has indulged into a fanciful if not wholly frivolous litigation for claiming retrospective promotion from 1996 in the garb of revision of seniority. Thus, the prayer in this writ application is wholly untenable either in facts or in law and the same is fit to be rejected. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner would submit that at least the petitioner may be given liberty to file fresh representation for 8 the relief prayed in this writ application. This Court would find it difficult now to accede to such prayer of the counsel for the petitioner because on two occasions the petitioner had been already given such liberty for filing of the representation and two speaking orders as noticed above have already been passed by the Respondent. Merely because the petitioner since retired on 1.11.1998 and now aged about 70 years still has a hunch that his seniority if re-fixed as per his liking, may give rise to possibility of claiming retrospective promotion with financial benefit from 1968 both in his pay and pension cannot be a ground to re-open the settled seniority order a passage of last 50 years and this Court must not give any further indulgence to the petitioner of filing a fresh representation on the same issue and the same subject specially when the orders passed by the respondents in this regard do not suffer from any infirmity. This Court cannot become a tool for fulfilling imaginary ambitions of the petitioner. Every good thing must come to an end and so do also this sort of wholly uncalled for 9 frivolous litigation. That being so, this Court would not find any merit in this writ application and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)