Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1348 (PAT)

Surya Nandan Prasad v. State Of Bihar

2007-08-14

MRIDULA MISHRA

body2007
Judgment 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioners have filed this writ application for quashing of the Notifications contained in Memo No. 265 dated 9.9.2004 whereby the services of respondents No. 6 and 7 have been absorbed and further for quashing of the letter contained in Memo No. 85 dated 10.1.2007 whereby and whereunder the Provisional Gradation List has been published giving 90 days for filing objection. Further prayer of the petitioners is for directing the respondents to consider petitioners case for promotion to the post of Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories on the basis of the earlier Gradation List. The petitioners are apprehensive that on account of their position in Provisional Gradation List respondents No. 5 and 6 may be treated as senior to them. 3. During the pendency of the writ application Civil Review No. 129/07 was filed for review of the order dated 6.5.05 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 324 of 2004. In the review application it has been stated that by order dated 6.5.05 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 324/04 the order dated 9.9.04 contained in Memo No. 2651 whereby respondents No. 6 and 7 have been absorbed was held to be valid and in accordance with law though absorption order was passed without observing the local formalities. Since the respondents No. 6 and 7 themselves has requested for absorption as such their date of seniority should be considered from the date of absorption and not from the earlier date of deputation/ posting. The order dated 9.9.04 was challenged in earlier writ petition i.e. C.W.J.C. No. 324 of 2004 and the same was dismissed, considering its merit and provision of law. 4. I do not find any merit in the review application and the same is hereby dismissed. 5. So far the apprehension of the petitioner that respondent nos. 5 and 6 may be given promotion to the post of Factory Inspector on the basis of Provisional Gradation List is concern, it has been denied in the counter affidavit it has specifically been stated that unless the Gradation List is finalised, no one is going to be promoted to the post in question. 6. I find that the apprehension of the petitioners is unfounded. Only prayer of the petitioners which requires to be considered is the validity of the Provisional Gradation List. 6. I find that the apprehension of the petitioners is unfounded. Only prayer of the petitioners which requires to be considered is the validity of the Provisional Gradation List. The Provisional Gradation List was published, and objection of every one was invited giving option for filing their objection. For this itself petitioners were not required to file writ application. 7. Considering that petitioners on account of filing of his writ application have not exercised their option and did not file their objection, this writ application is being disposed of with a direction to the respondents to accept the objection filed by the petitioners to the provisional Gradation List. The time for filing objection had already expired even then if objections are filed by the petitioners within three weeks from today, it should be entertained by the respondents. The respondents will consider those objection before finalisation of gradation list. This writ application is disposed of.