Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 518 (PAT)

Arvind Kumar v. State Of Bihar

2005-05-12

RADHA MOHAN PRASAD

body2005
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the State as well as the learned counsel for some of the concerned respondents, who have appeared after notice. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioners have assailed the validity of the order, bearing Memo No. 1713 dated 28.7.2001, contained in Annexure 1, whereby and whereunder the dates of promotion of the concerned respondents have been shifted from the dates of completion of eight years "Kalawadhi" by them and in consequence thereof their seniority vis-a-vis the seniority of the direct recruits, i.e., the petitioners herein, have been fixed vide Annexure 2 as is evident from sub-paragraph (Kha) of paragraph 3 of Annexure 2 itself. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents no. 1 to 3, to which a copy of the order, bearing Memo No. 1183 dated 20th June, 2002, has been brought on record as Annexure D, whereby and whereunder the order, contained in Annexure 1, has been cancelled and in paragraph 4 of the said order, it has been directed that the inter se seniority of such Assistant Engineers shall be fixed on the basis of their position in the Junior Engineers and not from the date of their joining as was done earlier, learned counsel for the State has, thus, submitted that this writ petition has become infructuous as the impugned order (Annexure 1) has been cancelled by the State authorities, vide Annexure D. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that while issuing notice vide order dated 14.5.2002, this Court directed that, in the meantime, any decision taken by the authorities pursuant to the impugned gradation list shall abide by the ultimate decision of this Court. It has been submitted that once the order, contained in Annexure 1, has been cancelled by Annexure D, the seniority fixed in the gradation list (Annexure 2) on that basis also cannot stand; more so because the petitioners are the direct recruits whereas the concerned respondents are promotees. Learned counsel has further submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition, the respondents have granted promotion to some of the concerned respondents on the basis of the seniority list, contained in Annexure 2, which fact has seriously been controverted by Mr. Mukhopadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the concerned respondents. 5. Learned counsel has further submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition, the respondents have granted promotion to some of the concerned respondents on the basis of the seniority list, contained in Annexure 2, which fact has seriously been controverted by Mr. Mukhopadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the concerned respondents. 5. However, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the promotion, if any, granted pursuant to Annexure 2, cannot stand in view of the aforementioned order of the Court passed on 14.5.2002 that any decision taken by the authorities pursuant to the impugned gradation list shall abide by the ultimate decision of this Court. 6. I find substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is not disputed that the petitioners as well as the concerned respondents both belong to the reserved category. Sub-paragraph (Kha) of paragraph 3 of the gradation list (Annexure 2) shows that their seniority was fixed pursuant to Annexure 1, which has been cancelled vide Annexure D. Thus, the question of fixation of seniority of the petitioners vis-a-vis the concerned respondents, vide Annexure 2, cannot stand. The State authorities will have to refix their seniority afresh. 7. Mr. Mukhopadhyay, learned counsel appearing for some of the concerned respondents has submitted that after issuance of Annexure D, the concerned respondents have represented for their promotion against due quota as claimed by them, which is still pending. 8. In the facts and circumstances aforementioned, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the inter se seniority of the petitioners vis-a-vis the respondents fixed vide Annexure 2 cannot stand and the State authorities shall invite objection from them and fix their seniority afresh, in accordance with law. 9. It is further made clear that any promotion, if any, made after filing of the writ petition on the basis of the seniority fixed vide Annexure 2 cannot also stand and the authorities shall examine this aspect and issue necessary consequential order within two weeks. 10. As prayed by the learned State Counsel, let a copy of this order be supplied to him for its strict compliance.