Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 8 (PAT)

Bhagwan Prasad Singh v. State Of Bihar

2008-01-04

KISHORE K.MANDAL

body2008
Judgment 1. The petitioner has approached this court seeking a direction upon the respondents to promote him on the post of Circle Officer w.e.f., 1.7.1978. According to him on this date persons junior to him were considered and promoted on the said post. A further prayer has been made to grant him all consequential benefits including arrears of salary etc., upon grant of such promotion. 2. According to the petitioner he was initially appointed on 15.12.1967 as Collection Peon on seasonal basis. Subsequently, he was considered and promoted as Tehsildar w.e.f., 10.10.1979. It has further been asserted that the seniority list of Collection Peons was prepared in which the petitioners name figured at serial no. 70. According to the petitioner one Sri Jagdish Pd. Mehta was appointed on the post of Collection Peon in the Revenue Department on 15.1.1968 on Seasonal basis and immediately within a period of one year he was promoted to the post of Tehsildar w.e.f., 17.8.1968. Similarly, it has been stated that Sri Khurshid Alam Khan was appointed as Collection Peon on 15.1.1968 on seasonal basis and he was granted promotion to the post of Tehsildar within one year on 26.9.1968 and thereafter he was again considered and promoted to the post of Circle Officer on 1.7.1978. The petitioner has also stated that one Sri Abhay Narayan Jha was appointed on the post of Collection Peon on 15.1.1968 on seasonal basis and thereafter he was considered and promoted as Tehsildaron 17.6.1969. He was again promoted to the post of Circle Officer on 1.2.1978. On these grounds/facts it has been stated that the petitioner has valid claim to be considered and appointed as Circle Officer w.e.f., 1.2.1978 as persons junior to him have been considered and promoted by the respondents. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed and placed on record. 4. According to the respondents, the statements/assertions of the petitioner are misconceived as those three persons belong to a different category and they cannot be compared with the case of the petitioner. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed and placed on record. 4. According to the respondents, the statements/assertions of the petitioner are misconceived as those three persons belong to a different category and they cannot be compared with the case of the petitioner. According to the respondents aforesaid three persons were Moharrir having status of lllrd Grade Post and in pursuance of the Recruitment Rules of Tehsildars they were promoted/appointed on the post of Tehsildar in Purnea Revenue Division much prior to the petitioner and thereafter in terms of the criteria laid down in the Recruitment Rules of Jiladar/ Circle Officer their cases alongwith other eligible Tehsildars were considered by the Departmental Establishment Committee and those persons were found fit and, therefore, they were granted promotion as Circle Officer(s) on different dates in the year, 1978. The respondents have further asserted that so far as the case of the petitioner is concerned, he was initially appointed on the post of Collection Peon which is a IVth Grade Post in the year 1979. His case alongwith all other IVth Grade Employees of Purnea Revenue Division was considered by the Selection Committee and on the recommendation of the said Committee the petitioner was promoted/appointed on the post of Tehsildar in the year, 1979. It is further submitted that in the final seniority list of Tehsildar the seniority position of aforesaid three persons alongwith the petitioner are as follows: (i) Abhay Narayan Jha-17.2.68-SI. 67 (ii) Jagdish Pd. Mehta-17.8.88-SI. 82 (iii) Khurshid Alam Khan-25.9.68-SI. 85 (iv) Bhawan Prasad Singh 18.10.79SI224. 5. On the facts stated above, it has been asserted that the case of the petitioner cannot be equated with those three persons as they belong to a different category altogether. 6. The respondents have further asserted that as per the Recruitment Rules of Tehsildars there is a provision to fill up the post of Tehsildar upto 25% of vacancy by promotion from the post of Moharrir and Amin and, accordingly, those three persons, who were working as Moharrir and appointed/promoted to the post of Tehsildar much prior to the petitioner, were considered under the said category. 7. The facts, which appear from the record, show that the petitioner was superseded by those three persons in the matter of grant of promotion to the post of Tehsildar way back in the year, 1977 itself. The said position was never challenged by the petitioner. 7. The facts, which appear from the record, show that the petitioner was superseded by those three persons in the matter of grant of promotion to the post of Tehsildar way back in the year, 1977 itself. The said position was never challenged by the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner was considered and promoted as Tehsildar in the year, 1979 and the petitioner accepted the said position and continued to discharge his duties without any objection thereto. It is also borne out from the record that a combined gradation list of Tehsildar was prepared and circulated in which the petitioners names figured at serial no. 224 whereas names of those three persons figured above him at serial nos. 67, 82 & 85 respectively. The said position appearing in the gradation list was allowed to continue for over a decade and now that the petitioner has questioned the same by claiming that these persons are/were junior to him. 8. The delay in questioning the said position would give an impression to this court that the petitioner acquiesced in the gradation list and accepted the fact that those three persons were senior to him. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had been mak- ing representations in this regard before the authorities and as such he cannot be said to be at fault for the delay. 10. Filing of representations will not absolve the petitioner of the position he is put in as he continued to serve as a Tehsildar for about 12 years whereas those three persons were promoted as Circle Officer in the year 1978 itself. 11. Delay defeats the equity. The aforesaid facts would show that the peti- tioner was tardy and indolent or acquies- cent and lethargic in raising the grievance against those promotion/appointment(s). In this connection a reference may be made to the case of State of M.P. & Ors. V/s. Nandlal Jaiswal & Ors., 1986 4 SCC 566 . 12. The courts have taken view that if the petitioner accepts position appearing in the gradation list for a pretty long time then the court should not interfere with the same at his instance at a belated stage and upset the position appearing in the gradation list. Reliance in this regard be placed on the judgment Mr. Mudgal V/s. R.P. Singh, AIR 1986 SC 2086 . 13. The matter can also be viewed differently. Reliance in this regard be placed on the judgment Mr. Mudgal V/s. R.P. Singh, AIR 1986 SC 2086 . 13. The matter can also be viewed differently. The petitioner apparently belonged to a different category and as such he cannot be equated with the case of those persons who became Tehsildar and subsequently as Circle Officer from a different channel altogether. If the "two categories are different and distinct then no equality clause can be brought into focus. On this ground also the claim of the petitioner is fit to be rejected. 14. Considering the submissions made by the parties and after perusing the facts brought on the record this court is not satisfied that any reasonable ground has been made out by the petitioner to interfere with the matter and to grant him the relief as prayed for in this writ petition. 15. Accordingly this writ petition fails and is dismissed.