Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 433 (PAT)

Shree Krishna Sharma v. State Of Bihar

2007-02-27

BARIN GHOSH

body2007
Judgment Barin Ghosh, J. 1. According to the petitioner, while he was working as a Group IV employee of the State Government, many other Group IV employees of the State Government, junior to the petitioner as such Group IV employees of the State Government, were promoted to Group III posts of the State Government with effect from 19th November, 1970 and, while said promotions were accorded, the candidature of the petitioner had not been considered. The fact remains that the petitioner was promoted from Group IV to Group III on 23rd November, 1985. He filed several representations to shift his date of promotion from Group IV to Group III to 19th November, 1970. While no attention was paid to any of these representations, the petitioner filed a writ petition registered as CWJC No. 10288/2003. 2. While the said writ petition was disposed of by a learned Single Judge by the order dated 30th June, 2004, His Lordship noticed that while it is the contention of the petitioner that his date of promotion may be shifted to 19th November, 1970, but there is evidence on record that at "least on 3rd September, 1982, juniors to the petitioner were promoted from Class IV to Class III vide an order as contained in Annexure-5 to the said writ petition; while the petitioner was accorded such promotion in the year 1985. Despite that, His Lordship observed, the petitioner did not approach this Court challenging such delayed promotion of the petitioner either on the date he was promoted to Class III or on any subsequent date until filing of the said writ petition and in the meantime did not make any grievance before the authorities concerned. His Lordship then observed that when the petitioner accepted his promotion in the year 1985, it would not be appropriate for this Court to appreciate the question raised by the petitioner for shifting back his date of promotion,, It was observed that the said writ petition was filed almost 19 years after the order of promotion was given to the petitioner and in that view of the matter the application itself is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. However, ultimately the learned Single Judge by the said order directed the respondent authorities to consider and dispose of the representation as contained in Annexure-13 to the said writ petition in accordance with law expeditiously. 3. However, ultimately the learned Single Judge by the said order directed the respondent authorities to consider and dispose of the representation as contained in Annexure-13 to the said writ petition in accordance with law expeditiously. 3. In purported compliance of the said order, initially, a decision was taken which purported to convey that the said representation of the petitioner is incapable of being considered. Subsequently, when a contempt application was filed for violation of the said order of this Court, a further order was passed when it was shown that the petitioner did not make himself present for being considered for promotion at the interview proposed to be held for that purpose while others did. 4. In those circumstances, by an order dated 19th January, 2007, the respondents to the present writ petition were directed to produce documents suggesting that the petitioner was asked to appear before the Interview Board but he did not do so while others did so. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has fairly conceded that at this belated stage those documents are not traceable and accordingly the same cannot be produced. 5. Although the laws of limitation have no application insofar as the writ petitions are concerned, but while exercising discretionary power in exercise of writ jurisdiction, the Court would not permit a litigant to have what he could not have in the ordinary process by invoking the extra ordinary process of writ jurisdiction. 6. If the date of promotion of the petitioner is shifted, he gets monetary benefit. In order to recover money, he was required in the normal process to institute a suit within three years from the date he became entitled to the same. After lapse of more than 25 years, will it be appropriate on the part of the Court of equity exercising discretionary powers to allow such a litigant to have the benefit of a money decree which he could not get in the normal course? I do not think so. 7. After lapse of more than 25 years, will it be appropriate on the part of the Court of equity exercising discretionary powers to allow such a litigant to have the benefit of a money decree which he could not get in the normal course? I do not think so. 7. That apart, after lapse of 25 years, if an authority is asked to produce documents to suggest that the petitioner and others were asked to appear at an interview and while the petitioner did not appear but the others did and the authority concerned is unable to produce the same, it would not be possible for the Court to take an adverse inference for non-production of such documents. 8. In the circumstances, at this belated stage, it is not possible for this Court to give any relief to the petitioner on the writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.