Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 450 (JHR)

Sushil Ignatius Minz v. State of Jharkhand

2011-06-06

JAYA ROY, PRAKASH TATIA

body2011
Order 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The appellant is aggrieved against the order dated 4th April, 2011 by which the writ petition preferred by the Respondent No. 3 was allowed on the ground that the notification issued by tile State of Bihar dated 26.10.2009 granting retrospective promotion to Respondent No. 6 in the writ petition, was held to be without jurisdiction as the Respondent No. 6 was holding the post of Additional Director (Mines) under the State of Jharkhand though initially he was holding the post under the State of Bihar but that was before creation of the State of Jharkhand. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that on earlier occasion even the State of Jharkhand accepted the decision of the State of Bihar in the matter of promotion and in the case of the appellant ' the State of Jharkhand has shown its inability to pass any order because of the reason that initial appointment of the appellant was under the services of tile State of Bihar and therefore the learned Single Judge has committed error of law by allowing the writ petition. 4. We have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and the reasons given in the impugned order dated 4.4.2011. The learned Single Judge has already considered the earlier judgments though detailed discussions are not there in the impugned order with respect to the ratio of the decision but that obviously because of the reason that facts were very clear and in the facts of the case the judgments relied upon by the respondent No. 6 in the writ petition could not have been applied. 5. We are of the considered view that even if the State of Jharkhand has shown its inability in granting promotion to the appellant on the ground that it should have been or it could have been by the State of Bihar even then that cannot change the legal position nor it can stop the State of Jharkhand from accepting the correct legal position. Once the service of the appellant stands transferred in the cadre of the post in the State of Jharkhand, then all matters could have been and should be decided by the State of Jharkhand and not by the State of Bihar. 6. Once the service of the appellant stands transferred in the cadre of the post in the State of Jharkhand, then all matters could have been and should be decided by the State of Jharkhand and not by the State of Bihar. 6. In view of the above reasons, we do not find any merit in this L.P.A. and the same is accordingly dismissed. 7. So far as question of• seniority of the appellant is concerned, there is no comment by the learned Single Judge nor by us in this order and since the order stands set aside on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the State of Bihar, therefore, if the appellant is entitled to any relief, then he may avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law, if it is available to him.