BHAGWAN SINGH Vs. GANDHIJI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants herein have preferred this letters Patent Appeal by leave granted by this Court to prefer an appeal, even though the appellants were not parties in the writ petition in which the impugned judgment was rendered. The respondents herein were the writ petitioner in the writ petition being CWJC No. 3210 of 1990. They claimed that they were working as Havildars in the Bihar Military Police Force, but their names have been wrongly left out from the penal, Annexure 5, which had been prepared for the purpose of granting promotion to the eligible Havildars to the post of Sub -Inspector of Police (Arms). According to the petitioners, though they were working as Havildars and though they were eligible for promotion to the post of Sub -Inspector of Police (Arms,) the names of persons junior to them were included in the said penal but the name of the writ petitioner had been left out. It was their case that their exclusion from the penal (Annexure -5), was unreasonable unjustified and arbitrary, since only the cases of those person were considered for promotion whose name were included in the aforesaid penal. The learned judge after hearing the parties and after a careful appraisal of the material on record came to the conclusion the even Havildar who were junior to the write petitioner have been included in the afore said penal leaving out the writ petitioner. He therefore allowed the writ petitioner and directed that the names of the writ petitioner (respondents 1 to 6) be included in the list for consideration and be considered for promotion of the rank of Sub -Inspector of police (Arms) against the post reserved for them by an interim order passed by this Court in the writ petition on

(2.) 11.1990. 2. A few facts which are not ha dispute may first be noticed. Respondents 1 to 6 herein, who were the writ petitioner were promoted as Havildars as a Special case under Rule 660 C of the Bihar Police Manual which provide that out of turn promotion may be recommended by the Selection Board to officers with outstanding record of service, and the competent authorities may order such promotion in deserving cases as they deem fit and proper with the approval of the next higher authorities. The criteria taken together for determining outstanding records of service has been laid down under the said rule. It is not necessary for us to consider those matters in this writ petition because out of turn promotion granted to respondent 1 to 6 has not been challenged by any one at any time. The, were given out of turn promotion to the post of Havildar on different dates in the year 1917. So far as the appellants are concerned it is not disputes that they were promoted to the post of Havildar later than respondents 1 to 6. The names of the appellants were included in the penal, Annexure 5, but the names of respondent 1 to 6 did not find place in the said panel which had been prepared for the purpose of granting promotion to the higher post of Sub -Inspector of Police (Arms)

(3.) COUNSEL for the appellants submitted before us that in accordance with the relevant rules, circulars etc. a Sepoy was to be promoted to the post of Havildar reckoning his seniority by reference to the date on which ho passed the Senior Promotion Course, or on the date he was exempted from passing the said Senior Promotion Course. It was submitted that basis for determining seniority in the cadre of Havildar must also be the same namely, the date on which the Sepoy concerned had passed the Senior Promotion Courses or was exempted from passing that course. He argued that so far as respondents 1 to 6 are concerned, they passed the Senior Promotion Course after their promotion as Havildar but within the period granted to them for passing that examination. He, therefore, submitted that in the cadre of Havildar the appellants must rank senior to respondents 1 to 6 on account of the fact that they had passed the senior Promotion Course after the appellants.