LALAN PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed challenging the validity of promotion of Respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 to the post of Havildar. (Armourer) made by memo No. 1277 dated 29.11.90 of the AIG(Q) Bihar, vide Annexure -1 to the writ petition. During the pendency of the case, on 10.12.91, the petitioner was also promoted to the post on being found fit by the Selection Board on 25.11.91. The grievance of the petitioner that the respondents were promoted to the post without considering his case, thus no longer subsists. The only dispute which remains to be resolved relates to inter -se seniority between the petitioner and the respondents. Having been promoted to the post earlier, the respondents are naturally to rank senior to the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as general constable on 30.10.71. He was selected as Armourer constable and on passing the pre -requisite course known as Preliminary Course absorbed in the cadre of Armourer constable on 31.1.1983. Respondent Nos. 4, 5 and who also passed the said course were also absorbed in the cadre of Armourer constable from the same date. All four of them were also confirmed on the post from same date, namely, 31.1.85. In the seniority list of Armourer constables the petitioner was placed at Sl. No. 15 while respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 were placed just below him at Sl. Nos. 16, 17 and 18. By virtue of his seniority the petitioner was nominated for the 'Basic Training Course' held in 1986 -87, but he did not join the course. Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 however, successfully completed the course in 1986 -87 and on being recommended by the Selection Board on 30.6.88 were promoted to the post of Armourer Havildar. The petitioner also later joined and passed the course in the year 1989 -90. According to the respondents, for promotion to the rank of Armourer Havildar, it is essential to pass the 'Basic Training Course' under Rule 1248(e) of the Bihar Police Manual and thus though the petitioner was senior to respondent Nos. 4 to 6 in service, as he passed the course later, he cannot claim seniority over the respondents as Armourer Havildar.

(3.) THERE is no dispute at the bar that if passing the Basic Training Course for promotion to the rank of Havildar (Armourer) is essential, a person who passed the course later, has to rank junior to the person who had passed the course earlier than him. The moot question for consideration thus is whether passing the Basic Training Course is an essential qualification for promotion to the rank of Havildar (Armourer).