BABAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is yet another journey by these writ petitioners to this court for the settlement of their competitive claim to seniority. Thanks to the unimaginative and perfunctory acts of the sadiest bureaucracy, when these police officers should have found themselves busy and engaged in controlling the ever increasing crime and maintaining law and order which has a real casuality, they have to overcrowd the courtrooms and its corridors. On the previous two occasions, in CWJC no. 2011 of 1976 and again in CWJC nos. 204 and 205 of 1978, they had to face the directly recruited Dsputy Superintendents of Police. The controversy in the present case has, however, arisen as a result of a subsequent change in the gradation list published on 19th June, 1980. (Annexure 9) affecting the petitioners and placing them below respondents nos. 3 and 4. In order to appreciate the controversy it may be necessary to set out a few facts.

(2.) The two petitioners along with respondents nos. 3 and 4 and some others were appointed as Inspectors of Police in the year 1953 after passing the Second Combined Competitive Examination conducted by the Bihar Public Service Commission. After working as such for about twelve years, hey appeared for their promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (D.S.P.) before the Inspector-General's Selection Board on 6th, 7th and 8th of July, 1964. The Board, after examining the service records of all the directly recruited Inspectors appointed in June 1953 and interviewing such of them as had been nominated for promotion by the Range D. I. G., considered the two petitioners and six others suitable for promotion to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and recommended their case to the Commission for promotion. Respondents nos. 3 and 4 and four others were superseded as their records were found indifferent and they were kept under watch. The recommendation of the Board is contained in Memo no. 3788/XB 7-64, dated the 20th of July, 1964 (Annexure 1). The Commission in its turn, vide letter no. 254.PSC/C, dated the 21st November, 1964 (Annexure 2), giving a reference to the Board's recommendation, recommended the petitioners and 33 others for promotion to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police (D.S.P.). Respondents nos. 3 and 4 were obviously not recommended by the Commission since they had been superseded and not found fit by the Inspector General's Selection Board for promotion. By notification nos. 5109 and 5111 dated the 16th June, 1965, the petitioners were given officiating promotion after duly observing Rules 22 to 24 of the Bihar Police Service Recruitment Rules, 1933, on the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, which they joined on 12th July, 1965 and 13th September, 1965, respectively, (vide Annexure 3). They were, however, confirmed on the post of D.S.P. vide Government Notification no. 7544 dated the 22nd August, 1974. Respondents nos. 3 and 4 were again considered by the next I. G.'s Selection Board on the 3rd and 4th June, 1965, and were found suitable. Their case was also recommended to the Commission (vide Annexure A) and the Commission by its Memo no. 311 PSC/C, dated the 15th September, 1960, recommended their names for promotion to the post of D.S.P. It has been asserted by the petitioners that no formal notification was ever issued by the Government appointing them on the post of D.S.P. This fact has not been denied either on behalf of the respondent State Government or on behalf of respondents nos. 3 and 4 and no notification formally appointing them as D.S.P. has been brought to our notice. Respondents nos. 3 and 4 were deputed to work as Assistant Security Officers in the Bokaro Steel Ltd., with effect from 15th October, 1965 and 1st November, 1965, respectively (vide Annexure C), in the replacement scale of pay of D.S.P. of the State Government plus 20 per cent as deputation allowonce, pending finalisation of the terms and conditions of deputation. The terms and conditions, however, seem to have been settled (vide Annexure D, dated the 21st June, 1967) and they were allowed deputation on foreign terms for two years in the first instance with pay in the replacement scale of D.S.P. plus 20 per cent of the pay as deputation allowance. It is relevant to mention here that no recommendation of the Commission had been received recommending them for promotion to the rank of D.S.P., prior to September 1966, as stated above, nor they had been given any ad hoc promotion in the meanwhile From the terms of deputation, it would appear that they had been deputed to Bokaro Steel Ltd., in their substantive cadre of Inspector of Police. In fact, petitioner no. 1, on his officiating promotion to the post of D.S.P. in the year 1965, had been succeeded by respondent no. 4 as Inspector of Police, Patna City, and respondent no. 3 succeeded as Inspector of Police one Lakshmi Narain Pathak who also had been given promotion as D.S.P. along with the petitioner. On 1st September, 1974, a combind gradation list was published in which the petitioners were shown junior to even the directly recruited Deputy Superintendents of Police appointed in the year 1974. The petitioners filed certain representation to the Government for reckoning their seniority on the basis of their continuous officiation in the post of D.S.P. but having failed there, they along with some others filed CWJC no. 2011 of 1976 in this court. That was their first journey to this court, While the said writ application was pending, Government of Bihar constituted a high-power committee consisting of Shri Saran Singh, the then Member, Board of Revenue, Government of Bihar, as the Chairman and the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Bihar and the Financial Commissioner as members. The said committee suggested some remedies one of which was to reckon the seniority of the promoted officers vis-a-vis the direct recruits by taking into account the continuous officiating service instead of on the basis of length of substantive service in the cadre. These recommendations were accepted by the Government vide Resolution dated the 11th April, 1977, published in the Bihar Gazette (Extraordinary) dated the 27th April, 1977. The Government converted 54 temporary posts in existence since 1948 to 1970 permanent posts and the officers officiating on these posts were placed on probation from their respective dates of officiation. CWJC no. 2011 of 1976 was disposed of on 2nd December, 1977, in the light of the above mentioned Government Resolution, with a direction to re-examine the matter and prepare a fresh gradation list. Pursuant to the above mentioned Government Resolution dated the 11th April, 1977, two notifications were issued, one, on 30th December, 1917, converting 54 temporary posts of D.S.P.'s into permanent posts from the date of their creation and, the other, on 7th January, 1978 appointing 54 persons on probation with effect from the date of their continuous officiation (vide Annexures 4 and 5 respectively). In Annexure 5, petitioner no. l has been shown to be appointel on probation with effect from 12th July, 1965, and petitioner no. 2 from 13th September, 1965, at serial nos. 24 and 2 respectively, whereas respondents nos. 3 and 4, both, from 29th August, 196 , at serial nos. 32 and 33 respectively. These orders were challenged by some direct recruit in CWJC nos. 204 and 205 of 1978 as mentioned above. While the two writ applications were still pending, the Government of Bihar published a fresh gradation list on 24th February, 1978, and invited objections. The said gradation list is contained in Annexure 6, in which the petitioners are shown at serial nos. 53 and 56 respectively, whereas respondents nos. 3 and 4 at serial nos. 77 and 78 respectively. This was also challenged by the petitioners in CWJC nos. 204 and 205 of 1978 by filing a petition for amendment. CWJO nos. 204 and 205 of 1978 were decided by a common judgment on 29th June, 1978 and the orders contained in Annexures 4, 5 and 6 herein were quashed. The petitioners and one Rajendra Narain Singh, who were respondents in the said two writ applications, went to the Supreme Court in Civil Appeals nos 1309 and 1310 of 1978, and the Supreme Court by its judgment and order dated 10th April, 1980, set aside the judgment and order of this court and upheld the Government orders and the gradation list contained in Annexures 4, 5 and 6 herein vide the case of Rajendra Narain Singh and others (AIR 1980 Supreme Court 1246).

(3.) It appears that respondents nos. 3 and 4 had filed some representation before the Government for giving their date of officiation in the rank of D.S.P. with effect from 15th October, 1965, and 1sth November 1965 respectively, i. e., the date when they were deputed to Bokaro Steel Ltd., as Assistant Security Officers. The Government in its Memo no 3927 dated 6th April. 1978. (Annexure 7) acceded to their demand and corrected their date of officiation in the post of D. S. P. as 15th October, 1965 and 1st November, 1965, respectively, CWJC nos. 204 and 205 of 1978 were then pending in this court but the order contained in Annexure 7 was not brought to the notice of this court. It was also not brought to the notice of this couft. It was also not brought to the notice of the Supreme Court when the matter went there. The state Government had, on the other hand taken the stand that the orders contained in Annexures 4 and 5 and the gra'dation list contained in Annexures 6 herein were valid and correct. When the petitioners came to know about the order contained in Annexure 7 they filed a common representation on 3rd June, 1980, requesting the Government that their position in the gradation list (Annexure 6) be maintained. No decision was taken their representation. A revised gradation list of the permanent D. S.P.,'s, however, was published along with Memo no. 4895 dated the 19th June, 1980, in which respondent no. 3 has been placed at serial no. 55 respondent no. 4 at serial no. 56 and the petitioners at serial nos. 57 and 59 respectively. This gradation list is contained in Annexure 9. The petitioners, in this writ application, have challenged Annexure 7 and the gradation list contained in Annexure 9 to the extent it concerns them and respondents nos. 3 and 4. In Annexure 9, the date of continuous officiation as D. S. P of respondent no. 3 has been given as 15th October 1965 and of respondent no. 4 as 1st November, 1965, whereas the date of continuous officiation as D.S.P. of petitioner no. 1 has been given as 12th July 1965 and that of petitioner no. 2 as 13th September, 1965. Even so, the respondents have been placed above the petitioners.