Sachchidanand sinha v. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna & Ors

1. Sachchidanand sinha, son of Sri Ramdeo Sinha, Resident of village Narharpur, P.S. Janadaha, District Vaishali,

2. Uday Shankar Prasad son of late Bishu Bhagwan Sahay, resident of village Madhopur Khari, P.S. Tajpur, District Samastipur,

3. Md. Quaish son of Md. Kuddus, residentof village Mainpura Mangalpal, P.S. Dariyapur, District Saran, … … Respondents/Opposite Parties … 3

09.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This review petition is filed for reviewing the order of the Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 578 of 2005 dated 14.12.2006. The writ petition was filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus against the respondents to send back the writ petitioners to the district work of the Police Department and direct the respondents to consider their cases for promotion on the post of Steno Sub-Inspector of Police from the date when their juniors were promoted 2 with all consequential benefits, including arrears of salary of the promoted post. The petitioners were appointed as Steno Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police in the year 1984 and they have been retained as Steno Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police in the Police Department. In view of the provisions as contained in 42(5) of the Bihar Manual, the writ petitioners would have been sent in the District work of police after completion of five years as steno Sub- Inspector of Police. The relevant portion of Appendix 42(5) of the Bihar Police Manual is as follows:- “The standard educational qualifications, measurements, age and physical tests shall be the same in the case of steno sub-inspector as is for sub- inspector (unarmed) vide Rule 658 and for steno or typist assistfant sub- inspectors, those of constables, vide Rule 663. In suitable cases relaxation in height and chest may be done by Dy. I.G. , Admn. up to 1” and by the Inspector General up to 2”. In case of scheduled caste/tribe, further relaxation may be done by 1”. All candidates shall be allowed to appear in test of shorthand dictation/typing and after that they may be required to appear in physical tests meant for respective ranks. However, suitable candidates may be exempted from these tests. The candidates shall be the Central Selection appointed by 3 Board(Appendix 72(2). They will serve as stenographers for a period of 5 years, after which they will ordinarily revert to district work but before that they shall undergo the usual course of training at the Police Training College for ordinary Police duties. The Inspector General shall be at them as stenographers for a longer period where necessary. liberty retain It is true that the aforesaid provision says that the persons, who are appointed as steno Assistant Sub- Inspector of Police, are required to serve as Stenographer for a period of five years, after which they are ordinarily to be sent back to the district work and from that post usually post of Sub-Inspector of Police is filled up. But the same provision enables the Inspector General of Police to retain them as Stenographers for a longer period, where it is necessary, but that is only for exigency of service and they cannot be retained for ever depriving their chances for promotion for no fault on their part. But if their counter parts, who are also juniors to them, are sent for the district work and are considered for promotion, the retention of the petitioners for ever will deprive their chances of promotion and will promote chances of discrimination, favouritism and arbitrary action. It is also the case of the 4 writ petitioners that the persons, who were appointed along with the petitioners, were promoted as Sub- Inspector of Police. The promotion of the writ petitioners was delayed because they have continued retention as stenographers in the Police Department. A group of similarly situated persons had approached this Court for direction to the respondents that their cases for promotion to the posts of Sub-Inspector of Police be considered from the date their juniors were promoted. By judgment dated 14th December, 1982, in CWJC No. 2601 of 1982(annexure 3 to the Civil Review Petition) a Division Bench of this Court has held as follows: “The learned Standing Counsel after consulting the authorities concerned, made a statement before the Court that the apprehension of the petitioners that their cases for promotion the posts of Inspector of Police shall not be considered along with the persons, who had been appointed with petitioners and had been doing district work, is without any basis. Learned Standing Counsel further stated that the cases of the petitioners shall be considered along with others and they shall not be ignored on the plea that they have not done district work and have remained Stenographers. In my opinion, the Inspector General of Police cannot 5 retain these petitioners as Stenographers under the purported exercise of powers under the aforesaid appendix 42(5) saying that it was necessary in the interest of the department and at the same time to deprive the petitioners of the right to be considered for promotion to the higher posts.” No appeal was filed against the aforesaid judgment. The State has also accepted the position that the persons, who have been posted as Stenographers, were promoted without sending them back to Districts due to exigencies of work. As per the Rules, after five years they have to be sent to the District only and due to exigency of service they can be retained for some more time, but without sending them back to the districts those persons alone cannot be promoted. Considering the earlier judgment and arguments the learned Judge has passed the impugned judgment in the writ petition. The relevant portion of the order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2821 of 2002 is as follows: “Despite law being settled by the Division Bench long back in the year 1982 vide aforementioned judgment, the respondents specially the D.G.-cum-I.G. of Police, Bihar, Patna(respondent no. 2), who is the head of the office, has not bothered to rectify the mistake despite opportunity granted to them and have 6 insisted to reiterate the same stand, which is contrary to the law settled by the Division Bench. This, in fact, in my opinion, amounts to gross contempt.” The learned single Judge of this Court also noticed that a supplementary counter affidavit was filed by the State-respondents reiterating the stand taken in the writ application. Therefore, the writ petition was allowed with cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid by respondent no. 2 from his pocket to the petitioners and also directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for promotion as Sub-Inspector of Police by treating/taking them back in the Steno A.S.I. cadre from the due date, i.e., from the date their juniors were promoted as S.I. Even though in the memorandum of appeal, the judgment of the learned single Judge was questioned on merit, from the judgment of this Court it would appear that only the matter was argued with regard to awarding cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid by the respondent no. 2. The matter was argued before us and we are also satisfied that in view of Division Bench judgment of this Court in CWJC No. 2601 of 1982 as also in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the judgment 7 impugned in the Letters Patent Appeal requires no interference even on merit and therefore, in that view of the matter, no review is required in the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 578 of

2005. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Review Petition is dismissed. (J.B. Koshy, CJ) SC ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)