IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12926 of 2004 GIRISH CHANDRA KUMAR S/O Late Subodh Chandra Kumar, R/O Kumar Bajitpur, P.S. Patepur, District-Vaishali at present R/m, 15 Mithila Colony, Indrapuri (Keshrinagar) P.S. Patliputra, District-Patna. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Director General and Inspector General of Police, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. Deputy Inspector General of Police (Personnel) Bihar, Patna. 4. The State of Jharkhand. 5. Director General and Inspector General of Police Jharkhand at Ranchi. 6. Deputy Inspector General of Police (Head quarter) Jharkhand at Ranchi. ----------- 6 28/8/2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. In this writ application prayer of the petitioner reads as follows:- “That this is an application for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order containing memo no. 4031 dated 17.9.2004 issued from the office of the Director General and Inspector General of police and under the signature of Deputy Inspector General of Police (Personnel) whereby the petitioner has been posted in the District of Muzaffarpur as Sub-Inspector of Police though he is Inspector of Police which has also been admitted against the name of the petitioner in the Impugned order itself and as such the posting of the petitioner by Impugned order on the lower post which amounts to reversion of the petitioner and it has further been stated that the person granted promotion on the post of Inspector by the State of Jharkhand be adjusted on the post of Sub- Inspector and for issuance of a consequential writ in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the Respondents to post the petitioner in the rank of Inspector of Police and not to revert without any cogent reason and/or for issuance of a writ/order/direction for which the petitioner may legally entitled to under the facts and circumstances stated 2 hereinunder.” Counsel for the petitioner would submit that when the petitioner was already granted substantive promotion on the post of Inspector of Police, by the State of Jharkhand by an order dated 18.9.2003, his subsequent repatriation from the State of Jharkhand to the State of Bihar in the year 2004 could in no manner have led to his reversion on the post of Inspector of Police (S.I.) as would be the effect of the impugned order passed by State of Bihar posting him as S.I. in Muzaffarpur district. Counsel in this context would submit that such promotion to the petitioner was given by the State of Jharkhand in view of order of Jharkhand High Court dated 27.6.2003 in W.P.S. No. 2974 of 2003 and that too after considering the combined seniority of the petitioner in the cadre of S.I. working in the State of Bihar and Jharkhand. He would, therefore, submit that though the impugned order is only by way of an order of transfer and posting but in effect the same would amount to an order of reversion which cannot be sustained in absence of observance of the principles of natural justice. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, would submit that any promotion earned by the petitioner in the State of Jhakhand was not binding to the State of Bihar and that the petitioner as on 15.11.2000 the appointed date under the Bihar Reorganisation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), was holding the post of Sub. Inspector and therefore his cadre allocation under the orders of the Central Govt. in terms of Section 72 of the Act was actually made on the post of Sub. Inspector and 3 the impugned order was accordingly issued by the State of Bihar posting him on the post of a Sub.Inspector on which he had joined and was working for last five years . Counsel for the State has further tried to explain that the petitioner’s professed seniority on the basis of officiating service was not correct in view of judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kameshwar Prasad Singh. In the opinion of this Court, as the issue in this writ application is confined only to the rank which the petitioner would hold on his being finally reallocated in the State of Bihar, the other question including seniority of the petitioner or the promotion on the post of Inspector would be legally decided in the State of Bihar. It is an admitted fact that as on 15.11.2000 the petitioner was holding the post of Sub. Inspector and in fact was also continued on such post within the territorial jurisdiction of Jharkhand till the petitioner was on the post of Inspector only on provisional basis in 2003. It is not in doubt that the petitioner ultimately in the month of September, 2004 under the orders of Central Govt. was allocated to the State of Bihar on the basis of option exercised by the petitioner claiming his absorption in the State of Bihar on the strength of being a permanent resident of the Vaishali district in the State of Bihar. In such view of the matter, petitioner’s right after being reallocated in the State of Bihar would only be confined to the post of S.I. Police which he was holding on 15.11.2000. Now in the State of Bihar the case of promotion of the petitioner on the post of Inspector, if he is otherwise eligible, has to be considered 4 and to that extent the earlier promotion obtained by him in the State of Jharkhand, in fact, would confer no right on him in terms of Section 72 of Bihar Reorganisation Act. Counsel for the petitioner finding no escape from aforesaid position in law has submitted that in Bihar also persons junior to the petitioner have already been promoted on the post of Inspector of Police and as such his provisional promotion given in the State of Jharkhand should not have been disturbed. Such an issue as to whether any person junior to the petitioner has already promoted on the post of Inspector in the State of Bihar has to be considered by the State of Bihar could be considered by this Court for giving him an equitable relief had the petitioner made an averment to this effect given details in the writ application and thus giving opportunity to the respondent State of Bihar to controvert the same and the petitioner’s such stand taken only in the rejoinder affidavit that one person junior to him, namely, Dinanath Pandey to have been promoted on the post of Inspector, cannot be adjudicated by this Court in absence of pleadings on record. There would however be no quarrel in law that if any person junior to the petitioner in the State of Bihar was already promoted before his being allocated the State of Bihar in 2004 till case of promotion has to be also considered from the date the alleged juniors including the aforesaid Dinanth Pandey has been given such promotion. This Court, however, would not like to adjudicate that issue in absence of said Dinanath Pandey or prayer 5 of his promotion on the post of Inspector in the State of Bihar, but then as the impugned order is in effect downgrading the petitioner at least in status which he had temporarily held even by an illegal order of his provisional promotion in the State of Jharkhand the Respondent authority of the State of Bihar would be under obligation to look into aforesaid grievance of the petitioner. Since all these aspects would require some factual consideration in the police department and therefore this Court would direct the petitioner to file a self contained representation high lighting his grievance against the impugned order and in the event the respondents would find any justification in such claim of the petitioner they will also pass necessary order for considering the case of the petitioner for promotion from the date any junior to him has been promoted as Inspector in the State of Bihar. If it is, however, found that the petitioner was/is not eligible or entitled for such promotion, reasons thereof also shall be communicated to the petitioner. Such exercise must be completed within a period of three months from the date of filing of representation by the petitioner. Let it be made clear that nether this Court has expressed any opinion on the merits of claim of the petitioner on the post of Inspector nor the impugned order of posting of the petitioner as Sub. Inspector has been interfered with. With the aforementioned observations/directions this application is disposed of. Abhay Kumar (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)