RAM SEWAK SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition was preferred by petitioner for direction on the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Reader w.e.f. 20.5.1983 and then to the post of Professor w.e.f. 20.5.1988, in the department of 'Sanskrit Sanhitya Evam Moulik Sidhant ' in Government Ayurvedic College at Patna.

(2.) WHEN the case was taken up and the counsel for the petitioner was confronted to the question that the petitioner had no right to be considered or promoted from the aforesaid retrospective date, in absence of rule/guideline and/or till he shows that juniors had been promoted, the counsel for the petitioner confined his argument for promotion to the post of Reader in the then scale of Rs. 3000. -4500/ - w.e.f. 1.7.1989 i.e. from the date the 5th respondent Dr. Maheshwar Pandey had been so promoted, during pendency of the writ petition vide Memo no. 880 dated 17.12.1999, subject to the decision of the present case. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention that the petitioner, in the meantime retired in 1999 from the services of the State. In the circumstances, the sole question to be determined is as to whether the petitioner was senior to 5th respondent or not. 5/1/2013 Page 192 Laxman Prasad Tiwary Versus State Of Bihar

(3.) TO determine the aforesaid question, it is necessary to look into the details of service career of both the petitioner and the 5th respondents, as recorded hereunder : The petitioner was appointed as temporary demonstrator (Sanskrit Padarth Vigyan) in the scale of Rs. 340 -490/ - vide order dated 17.5.1975 (Annexure -1) with effect from the date of joining i.e. 20.5.1975. On the other hand, the 5th respondent was so appointed as demonstrator (Sanskrit Padarth Vigyan) on temporary basis in the scale of Rs. 340 - 490/ - by earlier order dated 12.5.1975 (Annexure -6) with effect from the date of joining i. e. 17.5.1975. Thereby, it is evident that the 5th respondent was senior to petitioner as demonstrator (Sanskrit Padarth Vigyan). So far as appointment to the post of lecturer is concerned, both the petitioner and the 5th respondent were initially appointed on temporary basis. While petitioner was appointed as lecturer (Sanhitya) in the scale of Rs. 415 -745/ - vide order dated 6.12.1977 (Annexure -5), 5th respondent was appointed as temporary/adhoc lecturer (Ras Shastra) vide earlier order dated 2.12.1977 (Annexure -6A). However, from the order contained in Annexure -B to the counter - affidavit and Annexure -8 dated 14.12.1984, it appears that the 5th respondent was subsequently reverted to the post of demonstrator since 5.2.1978, whereas the petitioner continued as adhoc lecturer. The service of the petitioner was regularised as lecturer (Sanhitya) w.e.f. 20.5.1978 vide order dated 3.8.1982 (Annexure -9). On the other hand, the 5th respondent was posted subsequently as lecturer (Sanhitya) vide order dated 14.12.1984 (Annexure -8) against a post created vide letter no. 192 dated 20.3.1979. Thus, it will be evident that the date of appointment of 5th respondent as lecturer (Sanhitya) is later than the date of appointment of petitioner as lecturer (Sanhitya). The post against which the 5th respondent was adjusted having created on 20.3.1979, i.e. much after the regular appointment of petitioner made w.e.f. 20.5.1978, even for the purpose of argument, it is presumed that the date of appointment of 5th respondent will go back to the date of creation of the post, the 5th respondent cannot claim seniority over petitioner as lecturer (Sanhitya).