Research › Browse › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

1990 DIGILAW 383 (PAT)

Ganesh Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar

1990-11-09

N.P.SINGH, S.N.JHA

body1990
ORDER N.P. Singh & S.N. Jha, JJ. This application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for initiating proceeding for contempt of this Court against the respondents who, according to the petitioner, have not complied with the direction given by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1571 of 1988 disposed of on 18.8.1989. 2. It appears that the petitioner had filed the aforesaid writ application making a grievance that on the basil of some vague adverse remarks his name is not being included in the Select List prepared under the provisions of the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation 1955. In the judgment aforesaid, this Court pointed out that when a similar adverse remark for the year 1983-84 has already been expunged by the State Government, the State Government should consider as to whether the adverse remark for the year 1982-83 should also be expunged. 3. In the present application a show cause has been filed on behalf of the Home Secretary, Government of Bihar, the Director Cum-Inspector General of Police, Govt. of Bihar, the Deputy Secretary, Home Police, Govt. of Bihar and the Inspector General of Police (Administration), Bihar. It has been stated on affidavit that in pursuance to the direction aforesaid given by this Court, the question of expunction of the remark for the year 1982-83 was considered by the State Government and that adverse remark has also been expunged. In view of the steps taken by the respondents, there is no occasion to pursue this application. 4. But on behalf of the petitioner it was pointed out that due to inaction on the part of the respondents, petitioner has suffered because his case could not be placed earlier before the Committee for consideration as to whether his name should be included in the Select List. This aspect of the matter has been examined by the Supreme Court in the case of Amar Kant Choudhary vs. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1984 SC 531 : 1984 PLJR (SC) 12. This aspect of the matter has been examined by the Supreme Court in the case of Amar Kant Choudhary vs. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1984 SC 531 : 1984 PLJR (SC) 12. In paragraph 8 of the judgment, it was said as follows : "After giving our anxious consideration to the uncontroverted material placed before us we have reached the conclusion that the case of the appellant for promotion to the Indian Police Service Cadre has not been considered by the Committee in a just and fair way and his case hag been disposed of contrary to the principles laid down in Gurdial Singh Fijji's case ( AIR 1979 SC 1622 ). The decisions of the Selection Committee recorded at its meetings in which the case of the appellant was considered are vitiated by reason of reliance being placed on the adverse remarks which were later on expunged. The High Court committed an error in dismissing the petition of the appellant and its order is, therefore, liable to be set aside. We accordingly set aside the order of the High Court. We would that the appellant has made out a case for reconsideration of the question of his promotion to the Indian Police Service Cadre of the State of Bihar as on December 22, 1916 and if he is not selected as on that date for being considered again as on March 12, 1981. If he is not selected as on Match 12, 1981 his case has to he considered as on October 14, 1981. The Selection Committee has now to reconsider the case of the appellant accordingly alter taking into consideration the orders passed by the State Government subsequently on any adverse entry that may have been made earlier and any other order of similar nature pertaining to the service of the appellant. If on such reconsideration the appellant is selected, he shall be entitled to the seniority and all other consequential benefits flowing therefrom. We issue a direction to the respondents to reconsider the case of the appellant as stated above. We hope that the above direction will be complied with expeditiously but not later than four months from to-day." 5. We direct that the case of the petitioner be considered in the light of the aforesaid paragraph 8 of the judgment of the Supreme Court. 6. This application is, accordingly, disposed of. 7. We hope that the above direction will be complied with expeditiously but not later than four months from to-day." 5. We direct that the case of the petitioner be considered in the light of the aforesaid paragraph 8 of the judgment of the Supreme Court. 6. This application is, accordingly, disposed of. 7. It has rightly been pointed out by Mr. Jaiswal, learned Additional Standing Counsel for Union of India that respondent nos. 6 and 7 are not necessary party to this application because they are in no way concerned with the dispute. 8. Let a copy of this order be given to Mr. G.P. Karn, learned S.C.5.