GOPI KRISHNA BIHARI PRASAD v. THE STATE OF BIHAR

and he was declared confirmed from that day of regular promotion i.e.1.3.1979. That during review, it was found that in the new seniority list issued in the year 2000, the serial number of the petitioner was fixed at 220 which was based on the date of adhoc promotion i.e.

8.8.1977 given by Range Office. Keeping in purview the rules and regulations and the land marked judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India passed in S.L.P. No. 12013/1998 Government of Bihar Vrs. Brij Bihari Prasad Singh, decision was taken to revise the seniority of the petitioner on the basis of date of regular promotion given by 4 competent authority i.e. 1.3.79 and accordingly the serial number of the petitioner was modified to 307(ka) in place of 220, vide police Hqrs memo no. 3155/p2 dated

10.8.2001. That it is further stated that D.G., Board was held to consider the cases for promotion in the year 2001 in the light of nominations received from Range Office. The D.G. Board found that there were only 100 number of vacant posts in the rank of Inspector. As such the D.G. Board decided to consider cases falling between serial no. 1 to 200 in general category and 1 to 1400 in S.T./S.C. categories which were supposed to be sufficient for filling up the existing vacancy at that time. That thus, it is evident that as because the seniority number of the petitioner was 307(ka) his case remained out of the consideration zone even though his nomination was received from Range consideration.” Office It is also clear from the counter affidavit that the petitioner’s case was considered for promotion in the year 2001 5 but therein it was found that there were only 200 vacancies on the post of Inspector and the position of the petitioner was at serial no. 307(ka) as per revised gradation list and as such he could not be promoted on the post of Inspector. The grievance of the petitioner now is that such revision in the tentative seniority list dated 25.4.2000 was made by an order dated 10.8.2001 by the authority without notice to him and therefore, that will not be binding on him much less detrimental in earning his promotion on the post of Inspector. This part of the submission of the petitioner has to be noted for its being rejected because this Court at the stage of considering the grievance of promotion of the petitioner on the post of Inspector cannot go into question of correctness of seniority list issued during the pendency of this writ application such tentative seniority list dated 25.4.2000 was revised on 10.8.2001 giving him a separate fresh cause of action but he did not assail the same till he remained in active service and only after retirement he had filed I.A. 6 No. 2675 of 2002 in this very writ petition that too without impleading the concerned persons at serial no. 220 to 307, who could be adversely affected by revision of such seniority and consequential promotion earned by them. Thus the prayer of the petitioner in I.A. No. 2675 of 2002 being pressed only today is fit to be rejected only on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party. That apart such claim of seniority officiating/ad promotion on the post of S.I. on 8.8.1977 in place of regular promotion of the petitioner on 1.3.1979 was already made subject matter of the earlier writ petition C.W.J.C.No. 4561/90 which as noted above was dismissed on merits by a division bench of this Court by an order dated 13.11.1991 (Annexure-1). That the same question cannot be allowed to be raised by the petitioner as is sought to be done in I.A. No. 2675/2002. Consequently the prayer of the petitioner in I.A. No. 2675/2002 is rejected. Once this Court has found that no Sub-Inspector Police having 7 regularly promoted on or after 1.3.1979 alike the petitioner was promoted on the post of Inspector till 1.3.2002 it has to also hold that no person junior to the petitioner had been promoted so as to enable him to stake his claim for such promotion. As a matter of fact the petitioner has also not disclosed the name of any of his alleged junior to have been promoted on the post of Inspector and thus the vague pleading to this effect by itself is sufficient for rejecting the prayer of the petitioner. Infact the entire case of the petitioner is hypothesis adhoc/officiating promotion w.e.f. 8.8.1977 would confer him seniority over regularly promoted Sub-Inspectors between 8.8.1977 to

1.3.1979 without taking into account that his such officiating/adhoc promotion was itself invalid and that he could get seniority of the post of Sub-Inspector w.e.f. 1.3.1979 when he was regularly promoted as Sub-Inspector. Thus for the reasons indicated above and in the light of uncontroverted statements in paragraphs no. 9 to 12 of the 8 counter affidavit this court must hold that no person junior to the petitioner was promoted to the post of Inspector and as such his only prayer in this writ application for giving promotion to him w.e.f. dated of promotion of his junior is wholly misconceived. Considering all these aspects this Court would find no merit in this application and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/