Research › Browse › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

1988 DIGILAW 238 (PAT)

Rabindra Prasad Ravi v. State of Bihar

1988-05-24

P.S.MISHRA, S.B.SINHA

body1988
JUDGMENT This application, in a way, is an attempt to review the judgment of this Court in a (Rajendra Sinha and other vs. The State of Bihar and others, 1986 BBCJ 693 =1986 PLJR 890 which has left no ambiquity as to the rule which may apply for reckoning inter se seniority or those, who were appointed on ad-hoc basis under the Bihar Civil Services. (Judicial Branch) (ad-hoc Recruitment on Temporary Basis) Rules, 1974 and the Bihar civil Service (Judicial Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1955. The petitioners here in, according to their cases, entered the Bihar Judicial Service (The permanent Cadre) in accordance with 1955 Rules as probationers in the year 1977. The respondents herein, however, entered as ad-hoc Munsif under 1974 Rules it is not in dispute before the petitioners became probationers in the permanent service. It was later decided that the ad- hoc Munsifs be absorbed in the permanent cadre and a rule to the said effect was incorporated by an amendment in the 1974 Rules. The said Rule stated, inter alia, that a Munsif appointed under the Rule may be absorbed in the permanent Cadre of the Bihar Civil Service (Judicial Branch) by the Governor On the recommendation of the High court and on such absorption, a Munsif will reckon the period of his service as a temporary Munsif for the purpose of his seniority, from such date as, the High Court may fix in relation to ad-hoc Munsifs generally or an individual Ad-hoc Munsif in particular subject to the particular subject to the proviso thereto. The said Rule came under challenge in the earlier writ case and a Bench of this court held, inter alia that the Rule giving discretion to the Court to fix in relation to Ad-hoc Munsifs generally or individual ad-hoc Munsif in particular, to reckon the period of his service as a temporary Munsif for the purpose of his seniority was invalid. The Court reiterated the law that on absorption taking place pursuant to the said Rule with effect from a date, i.e. on 1.9.1980 they will be deemed to be in the permanent cadre, but for the purposes of seniority they shall reckon the period of temporary service as any probationer or others could reckon seniority from the date of end into the permanent cadre. No doubt there has been an attempt to reconcile with the cases of some such Munsif, who were appointed as Ad-hoc Munsifs initially, but latter decided into go through the selection for permanent Service and it was stated that a discretion in this behalf could be exercised by this Court to determine their seniority so that they may not become victim of the judgment for no fault of their. The said judgment of the Court has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 8698 of 1986 by it order dated 28.10.1986. Learned counsel for the petitioners although splitting his contentions in three parts has, in effect, contended that the judgment of this Court in effect, contended that the judgment of this Court in essence recognised seniority confined to the cadre of the Munsif in the permanent service and therefore, if the service rendered as ad-hoc Munsif has any relevancy that has to be confined to the seniority in the temporary service and not in the permanent cadre. In his words the contentions are whether for the purpose of determination of seniority the date of first entry into the service should be taken into account or the date of first entry to a particular cadre in the same service whether the period of service rendered by the respondents in the temporary cadre shall count on their appointment absorption in the permanent cadre for the purpose of determination of their seniority in the permanent cadre, and whether the seniority of Bihar civil service (Judicial Branch) is to be determined cadre–wise or of the service as a whole, the falacy in this contention is noticeable in the fact that the issue of absorption to the permanent cadre has been confused with reckoning of seniority in the service. It is well–settled that the seniority is not granted or conferred, but acquired. It is not the case of the petitioners and that could not be their case that the temporary service has been abolished. It has been absorbed in the permanent service and thus it has been continued in the permanent service. The date to reckon it has entered into the date to reckon the absorption is only for the purpose of finalising the end of the temporary service from which date it has entered into the permanent service. It has been absorbed in the permanent service and thus it has been continued in the permanent service. The date to reckon it has entered into the date to reckon the absorption is only for the purpose of finalising the end of the temporary service from which date it has entered into the permanent service. For the purpose of seniority, therefore, those who were in the temporary service or were in the permanent service must reckon inter se from the date they entered into their respective services. This being the position in law. We find no merit in this application. It is, accordingly dismissed. Application dismissed.