SURYADEO TIWARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CWJC No. 760/1990 -Set aside. Barin Ghosh and Navaniti Pd. Singh, JJ. -In 1987 the concerned Range Board found the petitioner, appellant, and others competent to discharge the duties of SubInspector of Police and, accordingly, granted officiating promotion to them from the post of Assistant Sub -Inspector of Police. While such promotion was accorded it was made clear that such promotion will not count for seniority. It was also made clear that such promotions are ad hoc promotions and the petitioner and others may be directed to their substantive post of Assistant sub - Inspector of Police if any person senior to the petitioner and others has been left out to be promoted to the officiating post of Subninspector of Police.

(2.) PETITIONER has brought on record affidavits filed by the State in respect of certain other writ petitions wherefrom one fact appears that is upto 1989 the Central Board was not constituted. In accordance with the Rules governing the promotion, an Assistant Sub -Inspector of Police can be promoted to the post of Sub -Inspector of Police provided he has been found fit to be so promoted by the Central Board. No such promotion can be accorded by Range Board. In the counter affidavit filed to the writ petition filed by the appellant it had therefore, been clarified that the Range Board was competent to give promotion only on ad hoc basis for discharging officiating duties and that too for a limited period.

(3.) IT was, therefore, well within the competence of the Central Board, which was constituted in 1989, to reconsider the case of the petitioner and to opine that the petitioner is not competent to be promoted to the officiating post of Sub -Inspector of Police. This, however, was not done. The Central Board in 1989 found that the respondents No. 6 to 11 are competent to be promoted to the post of Sub -Inspector of Police. At the same time it did not opine that, although by virtue of the decision of the Range Board, the petitioner is officiating as Sub -Inspector of Police, but he is not competent to discharge the duties attached to the said post or he is not competent to hold the said post. It however, felt that the respondents no. 6 to 11 being senior to the petitioner, while they should be accommodated in the post of Sub -Inspector of Police, the petitioner must give up his officiating post of Sub -Inspector of Police and, accordingly, reverted back the petitioner. There is no dispute that according to the Rules contained in Police Order no. 204 of 1988, inter se seniority of Assistant Sub -Inspector of Police and Sub -Inspector of Police will be determined on the basis of the date of appointment in the cadre of constable. But those officers, who have not been given promotion on account of unsatisfactory service records, their seniority will be determined after the expiry of the period for promotion on account of unsatisfactory service record. In such view of the matter, in the writ petition it was alleged that while the Range Board considered the case of officiating promotion of the petitioner and others, the cases of the respondents no. 6 to 11 were also considered and they were found unfit. Accordingly, it was sought to be contended that the direction contained in the promotion order that if any senior is left out to be promoted, the petitioner will be reverted, is not applicable to a subsequent decision of the appropriate authority to promote those rejected persons. However, it was sought to be contended that the promotion order itself would show that the cases of the respondents no. 6 to 11 had been considered and rejected at the time of granting the officiating promotion to the petitioner. A look at the promotion order would demonstrate that the same does not utter a single word as regards consideration of the case of the respondents no. 6 and 11. In those circumstances, there is nothing on record which would suggest that the Range Board while considered the case of the petitioner also considered the case of his seniors, namely, the respondents no. 6 to 11.