CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No. 2215 OF 1998 (In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) 1. NARESH SHARMA , SON OF SHRI RAGHUBIR SHARMA, RESIDENT OF JAI BAKASH NAGAR, P.S.- JAKKANPUR, DISTRICT-PATNA 2. SUNIL KUMAR, SON OF LATE RAMANANDA KUMAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- PIDHOULI, P.S.- TEGHARA, DISTRICT- BEGUSARAI 3. TRIBHUWAN NATH PANDEY, SON OF LATE SHEO BACHAN PANDEY, RESIDENT OF BANPURA, P.S.- JOGIA, DISTRICT- SARAN. ---------------------------- Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY,, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (ADMINISTRATION) OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 4. THE ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, WELFARE, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 5. SHATRUGHAN PRASAD SINGH, SON OF NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS. 6. KAMLA PRASAD YADAV, SON OF NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS. 7. DEO NARAIN SINGH, SON OF NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS. 8. SUDAMA PRASAD, SON OF NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS 9. GOPAL MAHTO, SON OF NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS. 10. RAJDEO MAHTO, SON OF NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS. 11. YOGENDRA PRASAD, SON OF NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS. 12. KAPILDEO SINGH, SON OF NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS. 13. KAILASH BIHARI THAKUR, SON OF NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS. 14. RAMESHWAR SINGH, SON OF NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS. ALL PROMOTEE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THROUGH AIG (W), OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA ……………..Respondents For the petitioners : Dr. Anil Kumar Upadhyay, Advocate For the private respondents : Sri Bishnu Kant Dubey, Advocate. For the State : Sri Rao Shivaji “Nath”, Senior Advocate. Sri Amrendra Kumar, Advocate. 2 P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K.KATRIAR THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL S.K. Katriar & Kishore K. Mandal, JJ. This writ petition seeks to challenge the two notifications dated 30.6.1997 (Annexure-7), and of 28.8.1997 (Annexure-8), whereby the benefit of continuous officiation to respondent nos. 5 to 14 on the posts of Sub-Inspector of Police, has been restored. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the writ petition may be indicated. Respondent nos. 5 to 14 were initially appointed in the services of the Bihar Government between 1969 to 1971 as Police Constables. They were allowed to officiate as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police (hereinafter referred to as A.S.I.) in the year 1974. They continued as such, and were ultimately allowed to officiate as Sub-Inspectors of Police (hereinafter referred to as S.I), in September, 1981. They were found unfit for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police by the Centralised Selection Committee under the provisions of the Bihar Police Manual during the period 1994-95. It is relevant to state that the petitioners are not concerned with the benefit of continuous officiation granted to respondent nos. 5 to 14, or the status acquired by them, as A.S.I., because the petitioners were directly appointed as S.I. during the period 1980 to 1984. A 3 number of writ petitions were filed in this court including C.W.J.C. No. 2686 of 1991, all of which were allowed by a Division Bench of this court by judgment dated 8.5.1996 (Annexure-5), whereby it was directed that: “…accordingly, the respondents are directed to compute the petitioner’s seniority in the rank of S.I. from the date of their initial officiation in the said rank…” It may be stated that respondent no. 10 herein (Rajdeo Mahto) was petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 2686 of 1991. We are informed at the Bar that other private respondents were also petitioners in that batch of cases disposed of by Annexure-5. 3. In view of the direction of the Division Bench, the State Government issued the impugned orders whereby respondent nos. 5 to 14 herein, apart from other petitioners of that batch of cases, have been given the benefit of continuous officiation as Sub-Inspector of Police. The appeal preferred by the State of Bihar bearing Special Leave Appeal (Civil) No. 7286-1292/1997, were dismissed on the ground of delay, by order dated 17.9.1997 (Annexure-6), passed by the Supreme Court. The petitioners raise a similar grievance before this court that respondent nos. 5 to 14 have been granted the benefit of continuous officiation without following the prescribed procedure in the Bihar Police Manual, and without considering the cases of all the eligible candidates within the zone of consideration. It is further submitted that they have no objection if respondent nos. 5 to 14 are granted the benefit so long the 4 same does not adversely affect the seniority of the present petitioners. 4. The official respondents and the private respondents have made their separate submissions. 5. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears to us that respondent nos. 5 to 14 were appointed way back in 1969 to 1971, being promotees, are not normally expected to come in the way of the petitioners. We are informed at the Bar that most of the private respondents have already superannuated from service by now. Secondly, the petitioners and the private respondents belong to two different streams. Thirdly, the said judgment dated 8.5.1996 (Annexure- 5) has allowed the benefit of continuous officiation to the private respondents herein (the writ petitioners there), in the rank of S.I. from the dates of their initial officiation in the said rank. Those judgments seem to have attained finality. It further appears to us that impugned orders are really in implementation of the direction of the judgment. In that view of the matter, we do not feel that the seniority of the petitioners is really under threat in the present case. In this back ground, learned counsel for the parties seek permission to withdraw this writ petition with the liberty to raise the issue before the appropriate forum if the question of their inter-se seniority arises in so far as the private respondents herein are 5 concerned. 6. The writ petition, as prayed, is permitted to be withdrawn with the said liberty. Patna High Court The 10th December, 2009 NAFR/pkj (S.K. Katriar, J.) ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )