SHAMBHU SHANKAR THAKUR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna has been filed against the order dated 9 -2 -2000 passed in CWJC No. 706 of 1998 by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which the writ application filed by the appellant challenging the out -of -turn promotion given to respondent No. 7 (Raj Kumar Yadav) to the post of Inspector of Police and the Deputy Superintendent of Police (hereinafter referred to as the Dy. S.P.) respectively, has been rejected.

(2.) The case of the appellant is that on 16 -1 -1972, he was appointed as a Sub -Inspector of Police as direct recruit and he was confirmed on the said post. He was promoted on the post of Inspector of Police on officiating basis in the year 1982. Thereafter, he was awarded police medal for gallantry by the President of India on 24 -11 -1984 (vide Annexure -1 to the writ application) for his exemplary courage and bravery in discharging his duty while posted as Sub -Inspector of Police in the District of Ara, (now Bhojpur). There is a provision for out -of -turn promotion under Rule 660 -C of the Bihar Police Manual, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the Police Manual) issued by and with the authority of the State Government under Section 7 and 12 of the Police Act V, 1861. The appellant's case was considered along with other members of force for grant of out -of -turn promotion in terms of the aforesaid rule and he was granted out -of -turn promotion to the post of Inspector on 9 -3 -1994 with effect from 22 -7 -1982 (vide Annexure -2 to the writ application). Thereafter, he was not granted out -of -turn promotion to the next higher post of Dy. S.P. as the aforesaid rule did not apply in a case of promotion to the post of Dy. S.P. In the meantime, persons junior to him including respondent No. 7 were promoted to the post of Dy. S.P. and so he filed a writ application being CWJC No. 6120 of 1995 which was allowed on 10 -1 -1997 with a direction to the respondents to consider his case for promotion to the next higher post of Dy. S.P. from the date his juniors were promoted, (vide Annexure -3 to the writ application). According to him, respondent No. 7 was appointed as Sub -Inspector of Police much after him on 30 -7 -1981. The Sub -Inspectors appointed in the year 1980 have not been granted promotion to the post of Inspector. The Respondent No. 7 was given out -of -turn promotion on the post of Inspector on officiating basis with effect from 3 -11 -1992 by order dated 20 -2 -1993 (vide Annexure -4 to the writ application). The said promotion was given to him by making relaxation in Police Order No. 121 on the basis of his being recipient of silver medal in 1992 in Scientific Aids to Investigation (Footprint events). Thereafter, a Committee under the Chairmanship of Director -General and Inspector -General of Police, Bihar in its meeting dated 30 -12 -1996 considered the case of respondent No. 7 for out -of -turn promotion from the post of Inspector to the post of Dy. S.P. and recommended his case for out -of -turn promotion to the post of Dy. S.P. (vide Annexure -5 to the writ application). In the same meeting, a decision was also taken for confirming respondent No. 7 in the rank of Inspector with effect from 3 -11 -1994 and accordingly by order dated 10 -1 -1997, he was granted confirmation to the post of Inspector, (vide Annexure -6 to the writ application). By notification dated 3rd February, 1997, he was granted out -of -turn promotion to the post of Dy. S.P. (vide Annexure -7 to the writ application) by the State Government.

(3.) According to the appellant, respondent No. 7 has been favoured in the matter of out -of -turn promotion because of his close proximity with the man in authority. His promotion is arbitrary, illegal and is an outcome of nepotism and favouritism. The promotion to respondent No. 7 on the post of Inspector and Dy. S.P. is in breach of Rule 660 -C of the Police manual and Police Order No. 121. This apart, the said rule is not applicable in a case of promotion to the post of Dy. S.P. and as such by taking recourse to the said rule, no Out -of -turn promotion could be given to respondent No. 7 on the post of Dy. S.P. The respondent -State on the one hand is denying rightful promotion to the appellant whereas on the other, it is conferring impermissible out -of -turn promotion to respondent No. 7 for extraneous reasons.