SURYA NATH SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions are filed by eight people (five in C.W.J.C. No. 11211 of 2003 and three in C.W.J.C. No. 11667 of 2003) who joined the State Police Force as Steno Sub-Inspector/Steno Assistant Sub-Inspector. The recruitment of Steno Sub-Inspector, Steno Assistant Sub-Inspector and Typist Assistant Sub-Inspector is made in terms of the provisions contained in Appendix 42 of the Bihar Police Manual. Paragraph 5 of the Appendix provides that after serving as Stenographer for a period of 5-years, a Steno Sub-Inspector/Steno Assistant Sub-Inspector would 'ordinarily' revert to district work, generally taken as the main line of the police force. Previously, on 'reversion' to the main line, the seniority of a Steno Sub-Inspector/ Steno Assistant Sub-Inspector used to be reckoned there on the basis of the date of his joining the original post. Relevant to this was paragraph 7 of Police Order No. 260 of 1997 that contained a stipulation to that effect. By order dated 22.09.2003 issued by the Director General and Inspector General of Police, Bihar under his memo No. 3537/P-2 (coming under challenge in these two writ petitions) paragraph 7 of the earlier police order No. 260 of 1997 was deleted. As a consequence, the seniority of a Steno Sub-Inspector/ Steno Assistant Sub- Inspector on his 'reversion' to the main line would be reckoned there from the date of his 'reversion' to the main line. In other words, for the purpose of seniority in the main line, he would not get the benefit of the period of his work as Stenographer.

(2.) The impugned order (enclosed as Annexure 1 in both the writ petitions) was issued following a Bench decision of this Court in B.P. Singh v. B. Tiwary 1995 (1) BLJ 11. Here, it may also be stated that against the judgment in B. P. Singh, a Special Leave Petition filed before the Supreme Court being SLP (Civil) No. 568 of 1994 was dismissed in limine by order dated 11.02.1994. It is, therefore, impossible to assail the impugned police order unless it is also shown that the case of B. P. Singh was wrongly decided. For that purpose, the petitioners rely upon an earlier unreported Division Bench decision of this Court dated 14.12.1982 in Girish Pandey and Ors. v. The State of Bihar and Ors. (C.W.J.C. No. 2601 of 1982). On behalf of the petitioners, it is contended that the unreported decision in Girish Pandey supports their claim that their seniority in the main line must be reckoned on the basis of the date of their joining as Steno Sub-Inspector/Steno Assistant Sub-Inspector and the case of B. P. Singh was wrongly decided because the earlier decision in Girish Pandey and the provisions of Paragraph 5 of Appendix 42 of the Bihar Police Manual was not brought to the notice of the Court in the later case. According to the petitioners, there is a conflict between the two decisions, the earlier one in Girish Pandey and the later in B.P. Singh.

(3.) These two writ petitions were first listed, as per the rules, before a learned Single Judge but he felt that on the question of determination of seniority of Steno Sub-Inspector/Steno Assistant Sub-Inspector on their 'reversion' to the main line, there was an apparent conflict between the two Division Bench judgments. He, accordingly, referred the two writ petitions to a Division Bench and that is how the two cases were listed before this Bench.