SHIV PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Bimal Kumar, Sen or counsel with Shri Dineshwar Mishra opened his argument firstly referring to the affidavit dated 18.12.2003 with which order of the Supreme Court has been annexed. After taking me through the order passed by the Supreme Court he submitted that he be allowed to refer to the order dated 22.9.2003 passed by this Court. After taking me through some portion of that order Shri Bimal Kumar, Senior Counsel made his submission that in the proceeding dated 22.9.2003 this Court had recorded a finding that on the date Mr. G.S. Kang has passed the order, the said petitioner had not completed ten years of service. This Court requested Mr. Bimal Kumar Senior Counsel to read that finding from the order dated 22.9.2003. After taking me through number of paragraphs learned senior counsel read internal page 11 of the order that reads as under:--

(2.) This order nowhere says nor records a finding that the petitioner did not complete ten years. This order simply amounts to say that if Mr. G.S. Kang in his order had observed that the petitioner did not complete ten years, therefore, he would not be entitled to promotion then this Court could understand it. The submission made by the learned Senior Counsel is just contrary to the records and tantamounts to misreading of the order.

(3.) At this stage learned senior counsel says that before proceeding further in the matter the observation made by this Court in order dated 22.9.2003 which are as follows be also observed :--