SURENDRA NATH PANDEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present writ application the petitioners are aggrieved by the inclusion of the names of respondent Nos. 6 to 12 and 22 in the Gradation list of Inspectors of Police published under memo No. 8616 dated 8.8.83, as contained in Annexure-5 by the IG. (Adm.), Bihar, Patna and also by the placement of respondent Nos. 13 to 21 in the said Gradation list above by the petitioners and consequently, they have sought for issuance of a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus to prepare and finalise the gradation list afresh in accordance with the law after exclusion of the names of respondent Nos. 6 to 12 and 22 and also for proper placement of respondent Nos. 13 to 21.

(2.) The short relevant facts of the case are that the posts of Inspector of Police is filled in from amongst Sub-Inspectors of Police. For promotion on the said post a Sub-Inspector of Police has to compete and on consideration of record of efficiency etc. scrutinized at various stages and finally upon recommendation of the Inspector-General (Adm.) promotion is granted. According to the petitioner's respondent Nos. 6 to 12 belong to the cadre of Reporters, which is separate from the cadre of general line of the police personnel including Sub-Inspectors and Inspectors of Police. By the Government resolution, contained in memo No. 1743 dated 16.2.1976 of the Under-Secretary to Government, Home (Police) Department, in Annexure 2, it appears that there were 6 Senior Reporters and 16 Junior Reporters in the C.I.D. which constituted a separate cadre of their own. The State Government with a view to boost their moral and to enlarge the avenue of their promotion, decided to give them the status of Inspector of Police and Sub-Inspectors of Police respectively in their own scale of pay with all conditions and facilities available to the Inspectors or Sub-Inspectors of Police as the case may be. Thereafter a provisional Gradation list of Inspectors of Police as circulated vide memo dated 19th April, 1983, contained in Annexure-4 inviting objections. The petitioners claim that they submitted objections. Thereafter the final gradation list contained in Annexure-5 was issued, the relevant extract of which has been annexed as Annexure-5 which has been impugned in the present writ, application. In the said Gradation list the names of respondent No. 22 who belongs to the cadre of Home Guard was also included and placed above the petitioners. The petitioners have also assailed the same. Further, the names of respondent Nos.12 to 21 who were given out of turn promotion were placed above the petitioners, the validity of which has also been challenged by the petitioners in the present writ-application.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that as the cadre of reporters as well as of the Home Guard remained throughout separate and were never merged with the cadre of the general Police personnel, such as Sub-Inspectors and Inspectors of Police, the inclusion of the names of the respondent Nos. 6 to 12 and 22 and their placement in the Gradation list above the petitioners is wholly, illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional of India. Further, in regard to the other respondents, namely, respondent Nos. 13 to 21 the case of the petitioners is that the said respondents having been given promotion out of turn as per the provisions of the Rules contained in Rule 660-C of the Bihar Police Manual either in the same order under which the petitioners were promoted or even later, have wrongly been placed above them in the Gradation list. In this regard, it is stated that except Ramdeo Prasad and Loknath Chakravarty (respondent Nos. 20 and 21) all the respondents were given their out of turn promotion in the Inspector-General, Selection Board of the year 1972, whereas the petitioner Nos. 1 to 4, who were promoted as per their turn in 1971, 1973, 1976 and 1979 Inspector-General Selection Board respectively, i.e. either before or in the same Selection Board in which the said respondents were given out of turn promotion yet they have been placed above the petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 in contravention of the provisions of the Rules contained in 660-C itself. As regards respondent No. 21 Aloknath Chatterjee, he was given out of turn promotion by the Selection Board in the year 1981 and as such, he should have been placed below petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 in view of Rule 660-C. As regards Ramedeo Prasad, respondent No. 20, it is contended that he was given President Medal on 26.1.78 of meritorious service when he was officiating as Sub-Inspector on fortuitous basis without Selection Board, but later was given out of turn promotion as Inspector in the I.G. Selection Board of 1978 without Even giving them regular promotion as Sub-Inspector. Thus, according to the petitioner, his out of turn promotion as Inspector in I.G. Selection Board of 1978 itself was illegal and contrary to Rule 600-C. But besides this, it is also contended that at any rate his placement in the Gradation list above those regular promotes upto in the year 1978 was wholly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Rule 660-C and also ultra vires Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India.