HARI BANSH LAL Vs. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal is on behalf of the petitioner of C.W.J.C.No.8660 of 2009 which was dismissed by the learned single Judge by an order dated 27.07.2009. The appellant represented to the Bihar State Electricity Board in 1979 for being appointed as General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer in the Board which was rejected. The appellant again objected to the provisional seniority list by filing a representation for being given due promotion and after obtaining the opinion of the State Government vide its letter dated 02.06.1983 the board found that the case of the appellant was not found fit by the Personnel Department in 1975 and on cessation of disqualifying factors his case may be considered afresh by the Selection Committee. This decision was communicated to the appellant in 1983 as may appear from Annexure-21 when it was communicated to the appellant that his case for appointment as General Manager- cum-Chief Engineer could be considered only after restoration of his seniority in the rank of General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer. This Annexure is dated 29.3.1979. The petitioner again represented to the Bihar State Electricity Board by his representation dated 25.10.2007 for retrospective promotion on the higher post of General Manager- cum-Chief Engineer but the same was also rejected because no reasonable grounds were found existing to allow the representation of the appellant.

(2.) The appellant does not appear challenging the contents of Annexure-21 which is a communication received from the Secretary of the Bihar State Electricity Board dated 29.3.1979 rejecting the representation of the appellant seeking his promotion to the post of General Manager- cum-Chief Engineer. Annexure-26 dated 15.4.2008 is a communication to the appellant from the Joint Secretary of the Board 'about the rejection of his representation dated 25.10.2007. The appellant had sought the same to be quashed by the Writ Court which was refused by the impugned order. Thus, what appears to us is that the appellant in spite of having got an order of rejection against his representation dated 11.10.1997 which was communicated to him by letter Annexure-21 which is dated 29.3.1997, remained silent for 29 years when he preferred C.W.J.C.No.8660 of 2009. The grounds for rejecting the representation of the appellant was obvious that the appellant had not been put back to his seniority position and as such persons who were already senior on account of the appellant losing his seniority, were promoted to a higher posts. Unless the appellant's usual seniority had been restored, the appellant could not have got himself promoted to any senior post. The appellant does not appear challenging the orders pushing him down in seniority in the gradation list, which was published long back and probably prior to 1979. The appellant slept over the matter and, as such, his claim appeared stale.

(3.) The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the case of the appellant was not likely to affect prejudicially any third party and as such dismissing the writ petition as being stale was not of any consequence. We want simply to point out that persons who had already got promoted to higher posts after superseding the appellant could have been deeply affected without any reason and if we do it they could be affected without being heard. We do not find any merit in the present appeal and we dismiss the same.