IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.330 of 1997 1. KANHAIYA PRASAD SINGH son of Sri Bikramaditya Singh, resident of village- Khairanti, P.S.- Buxar, District- Buxar, at present working as Sub- Inspector of Police in the district of Rohtas. 2. Devendra Pratap Narain Singh son of late Tej Pratap Singh resident of village- Ambari, P S.- Raghunathpur, District- Siwan. … Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 3. I. G., Spl. Branch, Bihar, Patna. 4. Superintendent of Police, Rohtas. … Respondents. ----------- 8. 11.05.2011 No one appears for the petitioner. The issue raised in this writ application regarding fixation of seniority of the petitioners w.e.f. 10.6.1976 and 15.6.1976 as also seeking promotion in the rank of Inspector of Police w.e.f. 10.6.1976 and 15.6.1976 would itself give an impression of a stale claim being raised by the petitioner after 20 years of the cause of action. Moreover, the whole aspect has been clarified by the respondent in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit which reads as follows:- “4. That before giving parawise comments on this writ application it is necessary to clarify the position in brief that the promotion to the rank of sub-Inspector of police is given on the State seniority on the basis of recommendation of the central Selection Board according to the rules 2 laid down in Rule 659 of the Police Manual Rule. The cases of promotion is considered by the Central selection Board according to seniority. There is a Kalavadhi of five years for promotion from one rank to another. The promotion given to the petitioner to the rank of Sub-Inspector with effect from 10.6.1976 and 15.6.1976 respectively is an ad hoc promotion. The period of such promotion that ad hoc rules cannot be counted towards seniority as decided in Food Corporation of India vs. Thaneshwar Kalita and others Civil Appeal No. 4029-30(1995) Supreme Court Cases 342.” Thus, in view of the fact that seniority as per the statutory Rule 659 of Bihar Police Manual based on substantive appointment has also been settled by the Apex Court, the earlier ad hoc promotion given to the petitioners without recommendation of the Central Selection Board could not have been enured to their benefit for reckoning of their seniority. To that extent their service history has also been explained by the respondents in paragraph 5 and 6 of the counter affidavit which reads as follows:- “5. That with regard to the statement made in paragraph no. 1(i) it is submitted that the petitioners i.e. Kanhaiya Prasad Singh and Devendra Pratap Narain Singh were initially appointed as Constable on 20.2.1968 and 24.11.1967 respectively. Kanhaiya 3 Prasad Singh was promoted in the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector with effect from 1.10.1972 and thereafter he was promoted to the rank of Sub-Inspector with effect from 10.6.1976. Similarly the petitioner Devendra Pratap Narain Singh was promoted to the rank of Assistant Sub- Inspector with effect from 20.3.1975 and thereafter he was promoted to the rank of Sub-Inspector with effect from 15.6.1976. Thus, it is clear that he was given next promotion within a short period of only fifteen months. The entry about his promotion made in his service book shows that it was not a regular promotion. No mention about any competent Board or Selection Committee which recommends promotion has been made in the entry. 6. That the petitioner Kanhaiya Prasad Singh was promoted to the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector with effect from 1.10.1972 further he was promoted to the rank of Sub- Inspector with effect from 10.6.1976. The entry made in his service book about his promotion does not speak anything about the competent authority or Board. It is worth mentioning that every promotion is governed by some rules and some procedures. Seniority and other factors are essential factors. Such principles and procedures for promotion to the rank of Sub-Inspectors have been laid down in police Manual Rule No. 659, which clearly says that the promotion to the rank of Sub- Inspectors will be granted by the Central Selection Board after scrutinizing seniority and other factors. This has not been done in the matter of petitioners. Petitioners have been given 4 promotion without considering their seniority and „Kalavadhi‟ between two promotions. Their promotion cannot be said legal as it is not in accordance with rules and provisions laid down in police manual Rule 659 and it has not been approved by the competent authority. It is worth mentioning that when their term of promotion came their cases for promotion were considered by the competent authority, i.e. Central Selection Board and they (petitioner no. 1 and 2) were granted regular promotion with effect from 1.1.1983 and 28.12.1989 respectively.” Let it be noted that even when the petitioners had filed their rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit, the assertion made in aforesaid paragraph 5 and 6 of the counter affidavit was not denied by them and therefore it becomes more than clear that the petitioners‟ ad hoc promotion could not have conferred them seniority for the purpose of their promotion on higher post. That being so, this writ application is wholly misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. kanchan ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)