STATE OF BIHAR Vs. RAM LAKHAN SHUKLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Rajendra Prasad, learned Additional Advocate General No. 1 for the appellants, Mr. Siya Ram Sahi, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents and Mr. P.K. Rajgrihar, learned counsel appearing for the Accountant General.

(2.) THE question involved in the writ application, the order of which is under challenge, is as to whether the writ petitioner was entitled for counting his seniority with effect from 15th December, 1976. till 20th December, 1989 as he officiated on the post of Sub -Inspector of Police in the Special Branch of Police hierarchy in the State of Bihar.

(3.) MR . Rajendra Prasad, learned Additional Advocate General No. 1 submitted that the promotion of the writ petitioner on ad hoc basis was not substantive one rather that was done as a stopgap arrangement which does not confer any permanency on him and subsequently since he was given substantive promotion, the services rendered by him on ad hoc basis would not be counted for the purpose of seniority from very inception. Learned counsel further submitted that even ad hoc promotion is required to be given according to the existing rules in the particular discipline and since it was not done so, learned single Judge of this Court erred in holding that the writ petitioner would be entitled for reckoning his seniority from the very date of his inception when he started officiating on the post of Sub -Inspector. In this context, Mr. Prasad placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar vs. Kameshwar Prasad Singh, AIR 2000 SC. 2306 [: 2000(3) PLJR (SC)81]. With reference to the . ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar (supra), learned counsel submitted that to enable seniority to be counted from the date of initial appointment and not according to the date of promotion, the incumbent of the post has to be initially appointed according to the rules where the initial appointment is only ad hoc and not according to the rules and made as a stop -gap arrangements. Learned counsel further submitted that the engagement of the writ petitioner was to work on ad hoc basis on stop -gap arrangement and it was not an arrangement permissible in law and therefore the writ petitioner was not entitled to any relief in the writ petition as substantive promotion was already granted to him with effect from 20th December, 1989.