IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3033 of 2002 1. RAMESHWAR PRASAD son of Late Munshi Mahto Resident of Village- Laloo Bigha, P.O. Karai, P.S. Bind, Distt. Nalanda. 2 Harendra Kumar Singh, son of Late Sheoji Singh, Resident of village and P.O. Harpur, P.S.Ekma, District Chapra, Saran 3. Bachcha Prasad Singh, son of Late Basdeo Singh Resident of Village and P.O. Gayaspur, District Muzaffarpur..................... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar, through the Director General ofPolice, Bihar, Patna. 2. Director General of Police, BiharMain Secretariat, Patna 3 The Inspector General of Police ( Administration ), Main Secretariat,Patna 4 The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Personnel),Main Secretariat,Patna.. Respondents. Advocate for the Petitioners;- 1. Mr. Narendra Prasad,Sr.Advocate 2. Mr. Akashdeep Advocate & 3. Mr. Shyameshwar Kr.Singh,Advocate Advocate for the State:- Mr.Pritish Kumar, J.C. to S.C. XI 5 21-11-2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. Petitioners have challenged the order of their reversion from the post of Sub-Inspector of Police to that of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, dated 13th February, 2002. Subsequently, petitioners have also challenged through averment in a supplementary affidavit, an order issued by Director General of Police dated 22nd April, 2002 which has been annexed as Annexure-`A’ to the counter-affidavit of respondents 2 to 4, whereby purporting to act in the light of a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar Vrs. - 2 - Kameshwar Prasad Singh reported in 2000 (3) PLJR (SC) 81, the earlier seniority of the petitioners, as A.S.I. determined as per Police Order No. 260/97 (Annexure-7) has been revised by holding that as per Supreme Court Judgment the benefit of ad hoc promotion cannot be granted in the matter of determining seniority. On behalf of petitioners a great emphasis had been laid on the fact that they were appointed as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police on officiating basis by different orders issued by the Superintendent of Police, Special Branch in the year 1981 and subsequently in 1985 an order of confirmation also appears to have been issued in respect of 1971 batch of A.S.Is. The relevant document dated 23rd. September,1985 annexed as Annexure 14 series through a supplementary affidavit filed only a few days ago clearly shows that it is in respect of 1971 Batch of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police but the list appended with that letter contains large number of persons including names of petitioners. It is not at all clear that how petitioners have been treated to be A.S.Is. of 1971 Batch whereas according to their own averments they were appointed as A.S.I. on officiating basis in the year 1981. Be that as it may, on perusal of relevant orders contained in annexure14 series which are said to be dated 23rd. September,1981 and 24th September, 1981, it is clear that petitioners were shown to have been promoted to the rank of A.S.I. on ad hoc basis in the year 1981. The relevant Rule 660 (a) in the Bihar Police Manual relates to appointment of A.S.I. and stipulates that Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police shall be appointed by promotion from the rank - 3 - (729).Promotion of constable to the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police shall be made by the Deputy Inspector General of Police. At least 14 days before passing orders for promotion, the Deputy Inspector General of Police shall publish by range order the names of those, they propose to promote in order that those who are not to be promoted may have an opportunity of representing their cases before the promotions are actually made. It is apparent from the material on record that Police Order bearing no. 204/88 related to preparation of State Gradation List but , it was subsequently cancelled on account of large number of disputes and orders passed in the writ petition. Subsequently, another gradation list was published on the basis of police order no. 260/97. However, before that by annexure-5 dated 15th December 1997 petitioners were promoted to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. That order contained in annexure-5 states in paragraph-2 that as per requirement in the light of gradation list in accordance with police order no. 260/97 the seniority and date of promotion of the promoted officers may be changed. It further appears from the impugned order that case of one Bishwanath Prasad Gupta was remitted to the concerned authority of the police department by an order of this court in a writ petition. That dispute related to seniority position of the concerned officers in the gradation list as per police order no. 204/88. On a finding that in that list petitioners were much below in position than the place or position no. 2979, petitioners promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police - 4 - required interference and hence petitioners were reverted. In the Annexure-7 dated 10th April, 2000 it has been stated that the provisional State Gradation list had been published as per police order no. 260/97 but the position in the gradation list may be changed as per judgment of the Supreme Court in SLP © no. 12013/98, the case reported in 2000 (3) PLJR (SC) 81. It is in the light of that judgment that annexure-8 is claimed to have been issued. A perusal of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar Vrs. Kameshwar Prasad Singh (supra ) shows that the Supreme Court took the considered view that promotion on officiating basis with clear stipulation that the seniority in the rank is to be reckoned from the date of his final selection under the Rules, cannot confer seniority from the date of officiation. It further held that when initial appointment is ad hoc and not according to rules and made as a stop gap arrangement the officiation on such post cannot be taken into account for considering seniority. On the basis of aforesaid decision the relevant gradation list has been revised by the respondent authorities of the State of Bihar and already circulated to the employees. This court has been informed that petitioners have filed their objections. It is clear that the impugned orders are based upon the seniority as revised by the State and objection of the employees in respect of such seniority list if pending is expected to be considered in accordance with law. It goes without saying that if petitioners or anybody similarly situated is entitled to correction in the seniority list and consequential benefit at a later date, he would be - 5 - Naresh entitled to claim such benefit in accordance with law. At present this court is of the view that reasons mentioned in annexure-10 as well as Annexure-A cannot be faulted and therefore petitioners’ reversion on the post of A.S.I. and revision of their seniority in the post of A.S.I. cannot be interfered with. However, seniority matter, as observed earlier is left open and if the seniority list is revised on account of objection or any judicial order, its benefit may be available to the persons who object and succeed. The writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observation. (Shiva Kirti Singh,J) - 6 - - 7 - - 8 - - 9 - (Shiva Kirti Singh,J)