RAMNARAYANRENU Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed in which the petitioner has complained that the persons junior to him were promoted without consideration of his case for promotion to the post of Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes.

(2.) The grievance of the petitio-ner arises out of the following facts : The petitioner appeared in the year 1972 in the limited competitive examination for appointment to the then senior Branch of Bihar Finance Service and after competing in the said examination he was appointed to the Senior Branch of the Bihar Finance Service which the petitioner joined on 3rd February, 1975. Thereafter the petitioner's case is that he also passed the departmental ex-amjination in the year 1977. The petitioner has annexed a document dated 9th March, 1979, as contained in Annexure-1, from which it appears that the petitioner's dated of allotment for the determination of the seniority was fixed as 17th February, 1967. Further case of the petitioner is that the same date of allotment was also fixed in respect of two other persons, namely, Raghwansh Mani Singh and Chuni Lal Khatri and they were considered for promotion prior to the petitioner, namely, in the month of June, 1977 and the case of the petitioner was not at all considered for promotion on that date. The petitioner has also annexed along with the supplementary affidavit, a seniority list from which it will appear that the petitioner's seniority position is at Serial No. 59. The petitioner's case is that the persons much below and junior to him have been considered for promotion and, in fact, were promoted in the year 1977. The petitioner had made several representations against such denial of his promotion and he was ultimately promoted to the said post of Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes with effect from 26th November, 1982. Even then the grievance of the petitioner remained that the persons junior to him and getting position below to him in the said seniority list, as contained in Annexure-11, have been considered for promotion in the year 1977 and they were also promoted to the post of Assistant Commissioner Commercial Taxes but the petitioner's case was not considered in the year 1977.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the respondents in this matter has raised various points, namely, that the petitioner was a non-commissioned staff in Indian Army during Indo-China War in the year 1962 and as such the petitioner is not entitled to be treated equally with the Commissioned Officers. The other ground for not considering the case of the petitioner for promotion in the year 1977 is that the petitioner did not acquire sufficient years of qualifying service at the time of promotion of other officers' and that the petitioner was found unfit. It also transpires from the counter affidavit that the petitioner was suspended and thereafter charge-sheeted. The suspension order, however, was ultimately revoked but the charge-sheet issued against the petitioner is still pending. It is said that the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner by the said charge-sheet has not yet been finalised. The petitioner has alleged in his supplemntary affidavit that despite the petitioner's attending the enquiry, the same has not been completed since 1991. It has also been alleged by the respondents in the counter-affidavit that there was some irregularity about the distribution of the Military pension and the petitioner was involved in the same. However, no proceeding was initiated against the petitioner on that account. From the materials which have been disclosed in this writ petition it also appears that the petitioner has stated that the difference between the Commissioned Officer and the non-Commissioned Military Officers in the matter of their rehabilitation in Bihar State service stood abolished with effect from May, 1972 as would appear from Annexure-13 to the reply filed by the petitioner in answer to the State's counter-affidavit. The petitioner has also annexed another document dated 12th July, 1991, namely, annexure-14 to show that in case where the departmental proceeding is pending against the delinquent employees for more than two years, the same cannot be considered to be a bar for promotion.