Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 602 (JHR)

Rathendra Bishnu Nanhen v. State Of Jharkhand

2008-06-17

R.R.PRASAD

body2008
JUDGMENT R.R. Prasad, J. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Counsel appearing for the State. 1. Petitioners have preferred this writ application for issuance of a writ directing the respondents to consider their case of seniority in accordance with gradation list prepared and published by the Office of Director General-cum- Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand vide Memo No. 46 dated 20.9.2005 (Annexure-1). 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police on 21.07.1980 and they received their time bound promotion and even Assured Career Progression (A.C.P.), when it became due and then in the year 2005, a seniority list was published by the Office of Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand vide Memo No. 46 dated 20.09.2005 and that in the year 2006, the petitioners were promoted to the post of Inspector of Police. 3. Subsequently, when 100 Sub-Inspectors of Police were promoted to the post of Inspector of Police vide order dated 27.09.2006. (Annexure-2), it was found that some of the Inspector of Police of reserved category have been placed higher in rank than some of the Inspectors of Police of general category, though in the seniority list of Sub-Inspectors, general category of some of Sub- Inspectors were senior to the Sub-Inspector of reserved category and thereby the persons of the reserved category shall always be considered to be senior even at the time of promotion to the post of Dy. S.P., which would adversely affect the future of the petitioners and if the seniority list of Sub-Inspector of Police gets disturbed, it would be detrimental to the interest of the petitioners and, therefore, prayer has been made to direct the respondents to give effect to the gradation list of Sub-Inspectors of Police (Annexure-1) in the matter of future promotion to the petitioners. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it has been stated that the petitioners have been taking Annexure-2 as a seniority list, but in fact it is not a seniority list, rather it is only order relating to the promotion with respect to 100 Sub-Inspectors of Police to the rank of Inspector of Police. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it has been stated that the petitioners have been taking Annexure-2 as a seniority list, but in fact it is not a seniority list, rather it is only order relating to the promotion with respect to 100 Sub-Inspectors of Police to the rank of Inspector of Police. It has also been stated that whenever provisional seniority list of Inspector of Police would be prepared, the same shall be circulated for Inviting objections and as such the instant application being premature, the petitioners do not have any course of action and hence application is fit to be dismissed. 5. Having heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record, including Annexure-4 (a resolution taken by the State of Jharkhand) relating to the Policy adopted for effecting promotion to the members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, it appears that consequent upon the decision rendered by the Honble Supreme Court in a case of Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan , holding therein that even if a person of general category gets promotion later than the person of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes category, the seniority list would be guided as per seniority list of basic grade prepared, but that decision has been negated by the Parliament, by adopting 85 th Amendment inserting Article 16(4-A) to the Constitution providing reservation in promotion to the persons of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes category with consequential seniority and pursuant to that decision, the State Government took decision to give effect to that amendment and, accordingly, decision was taken that the seniority list be prepared in terms of the provision of new amendment made in the Constitution of India. The State Government by giving promotion to the persons under Annexure-2 seem to have given effect to, of that decision, which decision appears to be in consonance with amendment brought by 85 th Amendment validity of which on being challenged in a case of M. Nagaraj v. Union of India was found to be constitutional. 6. In that view of the matter, I do not find merit in this writ application. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed.