IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14275 of 2005 PRAYAG MANDAL SON OF SUKAR MANDAL, ASSISTANT BIHAR MILITARY POLICE -16, PATNA AND PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILLATE MUSAPUR, P.S. KHIJIRSARAI, DISTRICT GAYA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, PATNA. 2. DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, PATNA. 3. PRINCIPAL-CUM-DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, PHYSICAL TRAINING COLLEGECENTRE, HAZARIBAGH. 4. INSPECTOR GENERAL (ADMINISTRATIO), BIHAR, PATNA. 5. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL (ADMINISTRATION), BIHAR PATNA. 6. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL (HUMAN RIGHTS), PATNA. 7. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL (PERSONNEL), BIHAR, PATNA. 8. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL, MILITARY POLICE, NORTH ZONE, MUZAFFARPUR. 9. COMMANDKANT, BIHAR MILITARY POLICE, PATNA. 10. MEDICAL BOARD, GAYA. 11. CIVIL SURGEON, GAYA. ----------- 2 17/09/2010 It may be a very hard case for the petitioner but the question or demand made by him will have to be judged in light of his entitlement under the law or the rules in operation in relation to the claim of the petitioner. Pursuant to an advertisement issued in the year 1982 by the Subordinate Services Selection Board, - 2 - petitioner became an applicant for the post of Sub Inspector of police. Petitioner succeeded in the said recruitment drive and was sent for training to the Physical Training College (P.T.C.) at Hazaribgh. He joined the Training College on 15.06.1984 but suffered a stroke and became paralytic from 03.11.1984. Petitioner underwent medical treatment for more than two years. With not much an improvement in his physical condition, he was placed before the Civil Surgeon to give his medical opinion on the capability of the petitioner to perform his responsibility. Civil Surgeon opined that the petitioner was not physically fit for the post of Sub Inspector of Police for which he was selected but his case could be considered for assignment of clerical duties. Petitioner was subjected to typing test but he did not have the capability. Even writing in Hindi did not have the required speed but taking totally a humanitarian consideration and the condition of the petitioner, he was appointed on the post of Clerk under respondent no. 9 on compassionate ground. Petitioner was not happy with the gesture of the respondents in giving him employment in the above stated circumstance. He came before this - 3 - Court seeking a direction upon the respondents to treat him as Sub Inspector of Police and give him all the benefits of the said post since he was a duly selected candidate for the said post. No categorical order in favour of the petitioner came to be passed by the High Court as would be evident from annexure-6 but the Court disposed of the matter with a direction upon the Director General of Police to consider the case of the petitioner sympathetically. Order passed by the Director General of Police dated 25.06.2005 has been annexed as annexure-9 and is also under challenge because the respondents have refused to give benefit which the petitioner is looking for. The stand of the State is that the order of the Director General of police is totally in conformity with the facts and the rules applicable in regard to such appointments. Petitioner was only a probationer and undergoing training when misfortune struck him. He was not even confirmed on the post and in the normal course of things he could have been sent back home without any benefit or any right having accrued in his - 4 - favour because it is an admitted position that the petitioner never came to be substantially appointed on the post of Sub Inspector of police but now when the respondents have accommodated him on a totally humanitarian ground, he wants benefit of the post to which he was initially selected. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to the Disability Act enacted in the year 1995 to claim such a benefit. The issue is whether such an Act can be made applicable to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances when he initially came to be appointed in the year 1984 or the post on which he came to be accommodated on totally compassionate reason. The benefit which the petitioner is claiming of the post of Sub Inspector of Police cannot accrue to him because he never came to be appointed on substantive basis. He had accepted the post of Clerk which was offered to him in the above stated circumstance and that by itself also bars him,to now demand any other benefit or claim to the post of Sub Inspector of Police. Petitioner cannot have both the benefits. In the above stated circumstance, this Court is of the opinion that the reasoned order given by the - 5 - respondents does not suffer from any infirmity and even independently petitioner has not been able to establish a right legal or otherwise for demanding such a benefit. In fact, the Court is of the opinion that the respondents have been more than accommodative and generous towards the petitioner going even beyond the norms laid down in this regard. This writ application has no merit. It is dismissed accordingly. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)