ZAHIR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both the parties.

(2.) AS would be evidenced from Annexure -8 to the writ petition that on 22nd September, 1994 itself, the petitioner had been recommended to be promoted to the next higher post. By that Annexure eleven Constables were found suitable to be promoted to the post of Assistant Sub -Inspector of Excise. The petitioner was listed against Serial No. 3 amongst those eleven. Again by Annexure -9, on 14th June, 1995, the petitioner was recommended for being considered for appointment to the said promotional post. Again by that Annexure, four persons were recommended of them the petitioner was listed against Serial No.1. By Annexure -16, 56 Constables have been granted promotions. Annexure -16 was brought into existence only on 27th October, 2004. The petitioner is not one of those who have been promoted by Annexure -16 to the writ petition. The reason for not promoting the petitioner is that the petitioner crossed the age of 50 years as on the date the D.P.C. considered the cases of the candidates for promotion. There is no dispute that the rules do show that in order to be promoted to the said post one must be within 50 years. It is also not disputed that the rules do not permit waiver of the said age bar. Of these 56 persons, so promoted by Annexure -16, at least two have been promoted, who admittedly crossed the age of 50 years as on the date the D.P.C. considered the cases for promotion. This has been specifically stated in paragraph -27 of the writ petition. In the counter affidavit, it has been stated that necessary informations from the Districts could not be ascertained earlier and accordingly, there was delay in finalizing the promotions. It has then been contended that the State was bifurcated and accordingly, it took time to clear the roster and that also added to the delay. In the meantime, as has been contended in the counter affidavit, it was found necessary to engage a few people to discharge the duties of the promotional post and accordingly, those two persons had been asked to officiate in those posts and since those persons were officiating in those posts, the D.P.C. recommended that their age be relaxed. This power the D.P.C. assumed despite there being no such power to relax in the rules. The D.P.C. relaxed the age bar in the case of those two and other persons because they were asked by the State to officiate in the promotional post. At the same time, the D.P.C. has failed altogether to take note of the fact that for no fault on the part of the petitioner and other similarly situated persons but because of the laches on the part of the officers of the State and their incapacity, no D.P.C. was constituted admittedly for 10 years and as a result, the fate of those people, who reached 50 years within those 10 years had been sealed but the fate of those fortunate people, who had been hand picked for the purpose of giving officiating duty, had been kept open and they have been given the promotions. The way, the matter has been dealt with is such that it smacks the conscience of the nation.

(3.) THIS disposes of the writ petition.