GIRISH CHANDRA KUMAR v. THE STATE OF BIHAR

the State of Jharkhand in view of order of Jharkhand High Court dated 27.6.2003 in W.P.S. No. 2974 of 2003 and that too after considering the combined seniority of the petitioner in the cadre of S.I. working in the State of Bihar and Jharkhand. He would, therefore, submit that though the impugned order is only by way of an order of transfer and posting but in effect the same would amount to an order of reversion which cannot be sustained in absence of observance of the principles of natural justice. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, would submit that any promotion earned by the petitioner in the State of Jhakhand was not binding to the State of Bihar and that the petitioner as on 15.11.2000 the appointed date under the Bihar Reorganisation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), was holding the post of Sub. Inspector and therefore his cadre allocation under the orders of the Central Govt. in terms of Section 72 of the Act was actually made on the post of Sub. Inspector and 3 the impugned order was accordingly issued by the State of Bihar posting him on the post of a Sub.Inspector on which he had joined and was working for last five years . Counsel for the State has further tried to explain that the petitioner’s professed seniority on the basis of officiating service was not correct in view of judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kameshwar Prasad Singh. In the opinion of this Court, as the issue in this writ application is confined only to the rank which the petitioner would hold on his being finally reallocated in the State of Bihar, the other question including seniority of the petitioner or the promotion on the post of Inspector would be legally decided in the State of Bihar. It is an admitted fact that as on 15.11.2000 the petitioner was holding the post of Sub. Inspector and in fact was also continued on such post within the territorial jurisdiction of Jharkhand till the petitioner was on the post of Inspector only on provisional basis in 2003. It is not in doubt that the petitioner ultimately in the month of September, 2004 under the orders of Central Govt. was allocated to the State of Bihar on the basis of option exercised by the petitioner claiming his absorption in the State of Bihar on the strength of being a permanent resident of the Vaishali district in the State of Bihar. In such view of the matter, petitioner’s right after being reallocated in the State of Bihar would only be confined to the post of S.I. Police which he was holding on 15.11.2000. Now in the State of Bihar the case of promotion of the petitioner on the post of Inspector, if he is otherwise eligible, has to be considered 4 and to that extent the earlier promotion obtained by him in the State of Jharkhand, in fact, would confer no right on him in terms of Section 72 of Bihar Reorganisation Act. Counsel for the petitioner finding no escape from aforesaid position in law has submitted that in Bihar also persons junior to the petitioner have already been promoted on the post of Inspector of Police and as such his provisional promotion given in the State of Jharkhand should not have been disturbed. Such an issue as to whether any person junior to the petitioner has already promoted on the post of Inspector in the State of Bihar has to be considered by the State of Bihar could be considered by this Court for giving him an equitable relief had the petitioner made an averment to this effect given details in the writ application and thus giving opportunity to the respondent State of Bihar to controvert the same and the petitioner’s such stand taken only in the rejoinder affidavit that one person junior to him, namely, Dinanath Pandey to have been promoted on the post of Inspector, cannot be adjudicated by this Court in absence of pleadings on record. There would however be no quarrel in law that if any person junior to the petitioner in the State of Bihar was already promoted before his being allocated the State of Bihar in 2004 till case of promotion has to be also considered from the date the alleged juniors including the aforesaid Dinanth Pandey has been given such promotion. This Court, however, would not like to adjudicate that issue in absence of said Dinanath Pandey or prayer 5 of his promotion on the post of Inspector in the State of Bihar, but then as the impugned order is in effect downgrading the petitioner at least in status which he had temporarily held even by an illegal order of his provisional promotion in the State of Jharkhand the Respondent authority of the State of Bihar would be under obligation to look into aforesaid grievance of the petitioner. Since all these aspects would require some factual consideration in the police department and therefore this Court would direct the petitioner to file a self contained representation high lighting his grievance against the impugned order and in the event the respondents would find any justification in such claim of the petitioner they will also pass necessary order for considering the case of the petitioner for promotion from the date any junior to him has been promoted as Inspector in the State of Bihar. If it is, however, found that the petitioner was/is not eligible or entitled for such promotion, reasons thereof also shall be communicated to the petitioner. Such exercise must be completed within a period of three months from the date of filing of representation by the petitioner. Let it be made clear that nether this Court has expressed any opinion on the merits of claim of the petitioner on the post of Inspector nor the impugned order of posting of the petitioner as Sub. Inspector has been interfered with. With the aforementioned observations/directions this application is disposed of. Abhay Kumar (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)