IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.405 of 2005 In (CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE 9380/1999) Ram Suresh Prasad Sah, S/o Sri Daroga Sah, R/o village- Sarai Dhanesh, P.S.- Desari, District- Vaishali at Hajipur …..Appellant/Petitioner Versus 01. The State Of Bihar 02. The Inspector General (Prison), Govt. of Bihar, Main Secretariat, Patna 03. The Home Secretary, (Prison), Home Department, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 04. The Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of Bihar, Secretariat, Patna 05. The Secretary-Cum-Commissioner, Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 06. The Bihar Public Service Commission, through its Secretary, Patna 07. Miss. Binapani Sarkar, D/o Late Jagdish Chandra Sarkar, Probation Officer, P.O.- Hilsa, Dist.- Nalanda 08. Raghav Prasad, S/p Ram Krishna Prasad, C/o Madho Prasad, Flat No.194/400, Rajbanshi Nagar, Patna, present posted as Probation Officer, Probation Office, Patna ….. Respondents/Respondents For the Appellant:- Mr. Rajendra Pd. Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kr. Singh, Adv. For the State:- Mr. Bibhakar Tiwary, AC to SC-21 For Respondents 7 & 8:- Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi & Mr. Patanjali Rishi, Advocates ---------------------------------- 25. 21.11.2011 The present appeal has been filed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 9380 of 1999. The facts of the case would go to show that the appellants are aggrieved by the action of the Government 2 in declaring the respondent nos. 7 and 8 as senior to them for the post of Probation Officer. According to the appellant merger of Assistant Probation Officer into probation Officer is bad as Probation Officer is a Gazetted post. It is further stated that respondent nos. 7 and 8 were appointed in year 1983 and after the Government took a policy decision to merge Assistant Probation Officer into Probation Officer and as the appellant were appointed as Probation Officer in the year 1993 they have lost the seniority. The matter has been contested by both the parties before the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge was not inclined to interfere with the writ petition and having accepted the merger and having found that the appellants have been appointed in the year 1990, subsequently to that of the respondent nos. 7 and 8 has dismissed the writ petition against which the present Appeal has been filed before us and same contention has been advanced before us by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 7 and 8 has submitted that the merger took place in the year 1983 and writ petition has been filed in the year 1999 nearly after a period of 16 years when Policy decision was taken 3 by the State Government to merge the Assistant Probation Officer into Probation Officer. Hence the appellant have no locus to question the same. We had also occasion to go through the judgment of the learned Single Judge and also the material annexed to the writ petition. No doubt the Government took a policy decision to merge the post of Assistant Probation Officer with that of Probation Officer by Resolution No. 45 of 1983 but an argument has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Advertisement was issued in the year 1983 for recruitment to the post of Probation Officer and also the Assistant Probation Officer and the matter was referred to the Government and the Government took a policy decision vide Resolution No. 45 of 1983 which was published in the Bihar Gazette for the post of Assistant Probation Officer and the Probation Officer and subsequently the seniority list has been prepared in 1996. Meanwhile appellants have been recruited on the post of Probation Officer in 1990. It has been submitted that the merger which took place by the Government has remained unquestioned and accordingly the appellants are also bound by the decision of the Government as the matter was already settled which cannot be questioned after a period of 16 years. 4 Accepting the contention of the leaned counsel for the respondents, we are also of the opinion that the Appeal needs no interference. Accordingly the Appeal stands dismissed. P.K. (T.Meena Kumari, J.) (Vikash Jain, J.)