Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 822 (PAT)

Bhupendra Singh v. State Of Bihar

2004-08-13

NARAYAN ROY

body2004
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The writ petitioner prays for issuance of direction upon the respondents to promote him on the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police with effect from the date his juniors were promoted on the basis of seniority fixed vide memo no. 3549 dated 8th July, 1996, issued under the signature of Inspector General of Police (Personnel), Bihar, Patna. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier the petitioner had approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 5646 of 1995 for fixation of his seniority and also for grant of promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police and the writ application aforesaid was, however, disposed of on 20th September, 1996, as that had become infructuous in view of fixation of seniority of the petitioner. 4. However, learned counsel for the State had submitted before this Court that the case of the petitioner for promotion would be considered in the next Boards meeting. 5. The Board thereafter met in the month of December 1996, but the case of the petitioner was not again considered and only requisitions were sent to Ranchi for sending down his service records. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, but nowhere it is stated as to whether in the subsequent Boards meeting the case of the petitioner was considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. 7. Counter affidavit appears to have been filed on 14.11.2003 and it appears from the materials on record that by that time, the petitioner had superannuated. However, the case of the petitioner even after his superannuation is required to be considered for promotion notionally. 8. Material facts have not been disclosed in either of the affidavits as to whether the petitioner has been considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, the case of the petitioner should be considered by the respondents authorities even for notional promotion. 10. 8. Material facts have not been disclosed in either of the affidavits as to whether the petitioner has been considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, the case of the petitioner should be considered by the respondents authorities even for notional promotion. 10. Accordingly, the respondents concerned are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police notionally and to pass necessary orders in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, in case decision has not been taken in this regard. 11. With the direction/observation aforesaid, this application is disposed of.