Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1576 (PAT)

SHAMBHU SHARAN PD. SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR

2011-07-28

AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI

body2011
ORDER : Petitioners have a long service career behind them. They still have a couple of years to go but a kind of calamity seems to have struck them by a decision taken by the respondents in terms of annexure-5 which is a part of a supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioners. 2. Short history is that the petitioners were appointed as Steno Assistant Sub Inspector of Police in the year 1976. They were confirmed on that post on 1.7.1978 and on being reverted to the general cadre of Police men, they were sent for training at Police Training Centre in the year 1986 and returned from training. They got their promotion which was temporary in nature on 6.5.1987 on the post of Sub Inspector of Police. This promotion stood confirmed by the Director General of Police Board on 3.9.1987. While confirming the promotion of the petitioners with large number of other candidates, the petitioners’ date of confirmation given by the Director General of Police, Board was 1.8.1983. The said decision taken in this regard is dated 15.3.1988. In the seniority list, names of the petitioners figured at serial no. 1691 (dha) and (gha) and that position stood ground all these years amounting to all 21 in number. Suddenly, the respondents decided to re-work the date of confirmation of the petitioners and their seniority in terms of annexure-5 which is being challenged in this writ application. Now the date given for confirmation vide decision dated 13.7.2010 is 20.08.1994. A reading of the impugned ORDER :would show that the reason for re-working of seniority or date of confirmation or the promotion of the petitioners is supposed to be in view of a decision rendered in the case of Surya Nath Singh and others Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in 2006(2) PLJR., 409. This decision has been produced by the learned counsel for the petitioners for perusal of this Curt to show that the basis for issuance of annexure-5 seems to be totally erroneous and on mis-understanding the law or declaration of it by the said Division Bench. 3. Matter had traveled to the Division Bench on an application having been made when certain doubts were expressed with regard to validity of a decision which was rendered in the case of B.P. Singh Vs. B. Tiwary reported in 1995(1) B.L.J., 11. 3. Matter had traveled to the Division Bench on an application having been made when certain doubts were expressed with regard to validity of a decision which was rendered in the case of B.P. Singh Vs. B. Tiwary reported in 1995(1) B.L.J., 11. Issue was question of recruitment of Steno Sub Inspectors, Steno Assistant Sub Inspectors and Typist Assistant Sub Inspectors. Their recruitment is made in terms of Appendix 42 of the Bihar Police Manual and as to the kind of opening, they are required to have in service because of these posts being a close post cadre. 4. Provisions were there for allowing such persons to be reverted to the general cadre of police and then being given opportunity of promotions according to their performance and eligibility as and when it accrued. The Division Bench after taking note of the provisions of the Bihar Police Manual did hold that there was requirement to revert such persons after completion of five years and in case it was not done, then how their seniority was to be reckoned and benefit of past service to be given. Five years is all which has been talked about in the said decision for the period a person has worked as a Steno Sub Inspector, Steno Assistant Sub Inspector and Typist Assistant Sub Inspector of Police or whatever it is. 5. Taking cue from the observation of the High Court in the earlier writ application filed by the petitioners which was C.W.J.C. No. 9919 of 2009 contained in annexure-1, the decision contained in annexure-5 came to visit the petitioners turning things upside down for them. The question, therefore, which arose for consideration, according to the petitioners, is whether a decision rendered by the Division Bench in the case of Surya Nath Singh (Supra) decided on 30.03.2006 will give a long handle to the respondents to undo things already done 22 years ago. There is no whisper or reflection in annexure-5 that this decision was taken in consonance with the direction issued by the learned Single Judge in terms of the ORDER :contained in annexure-1 or that there was any direction issued by the Division Bench in the case of Surya Nath Singh (supra). There is no whisper or reflection in annexure-5 that this decision was taken in consonance with the direction issued by the learned Single Judge in terms of the ORDER :contained in annexure-1 or that there was any direction issued by the Division Bench in the case of Surya Nath Singh (supra). In fact the Division Bench decision is only a declaration of law but how the respondents have acquired right to end settled things after 22 years is a question which is required to be answered by the respondents. 6. The stand taken by the State in the counter affidavit is basically hiding behind a decision rendered in the case of Surya Nath Singh (supra) but that decision may have prospective effect but how it will affect the rights which have already been created in favour of the persons who had already been given the benefit is something which is required to be explained by the State. 7. Suppose the decision had been rendered by the High Court in the year 2006 with regard to how benefit of past service is to be given, then that decision will have prospective effect and seniority will have to be worked out of all those eligible persons who were in the zone of consideration thereafter. It does not authorize the respondent authorities to run riot by taking away the benefit of confirmation or promotion 22 years down the line. 8. There is no better case or proof of non application of mind both with regard to the decision notified in terms of annexure-5 in so far as it relates to the case of the petitioners not only in the above stated circumstance, but the Court is fortified in this opinion further by reading annexure-1 where a direction was given to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners and decide the issue. Decision of the issue means the element which weighed with the respondents must be reflected by a reasoned ORDER :and not by proclamation or issuance of notification changing the date of confirmation or seniority. 9. Annexure-5, in so far as it relates to the petitioners, therefore, is quashed. This writ application is allowed. Decision of the issue means the element which weighed with the respondents must be reflected by a reasoned ORDER :and not by proclamation or issuance of notification changing the date of confirmation or seniority. 9. Annexure-5, in so far as it relates to the petitioners, therefore, is quashed. This writ application is allowed. If the respondents want, they will have to re-do the exercise totally in consonance with what has been recorded by the Court in the earlier part of the ORDER :as well as the direction which was issued in terms of annexure-1 by yet another Bench in relation to the claim of the petitioners when they moved the Court earlier. 10. This writ application stands allowed with the observation aforesaid.