JAIMANGAL PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was working as an assistant in the office of the Inspector General of Police, Bihar, Patna, has filed this writ application challenging the order of confirmtion of his service as per Government Order No. 673 dated 28-4-1981, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-14 along with the supplementary affidavit of the petitioner dated 2-5-1981, The petitioner has been placed in serial number 14 under this order on the basis of his purported date of appointment being 20-11-1967 in the service.

(2.) This date appears to have been taken from as earlier office order dated 18-12-1967, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-15 along with the second supplementary affidavit date 29-6-1981. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that his actual date of appointment is 6-1-1966 which was on the basis of the examination held on 19-7-1965. The petitioner competed in that examination and stood third in the same. He was accordingly appointed as a Lower Division Assistant with effect from 6-1-1966 in the Public Works Department. However, later on, no requisition from the office of the Inspector General of Police, the petitioner's service was transferred to that department where he joined on 20-11-1967 on the post of Lower Division Assistant and has since been working there.

(3.) Reliance has been placed on Clause (iii) of Rule 3 of the circular of the Government of Bihar in the Department of Personnel dated 26th August, 1972 wherein it has been provided. Where an incumbent is transferred from one service to another on his own request, services rendered by him in the previous posts shall not count for seniority. But in case such transfer follows a policy decision taken by Government, his services in the previous post shall count for seniority. The petitioner's claim is that his transfer from the Public Works Department to the office of the Inspector General of Police was not on his own request but was based on the Government order and, therefore he was entitled to the period of service rendered in the earlier department for the purpose of reckoning his seniority. The learned Advocate General, who appeared for the respondents, fairly did not challenge the contention in principle but in absence of any counter affidavit, he was not in a position to accept the petitioner's case that it was fully covered by the aforesaid provisions and, therefore, we put him as to whether the Government should be directed to reconsider the fixation of the petitioner's seniority in the list prepared under Annexure-14 afresh taking into account the aforesaid Government instruction particularly, in view of the fact that in Annexure-15 it was mentioned in Clause 4 that the question of seniority would be determined in accordance with the year of passing the examination and the position of the candidates in the merit list.