RENU BALA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being aggrieved with the order, as contained in Memo No. 5089 dated 9.12.2009 (Annexure-6), has filed this writ application, whereby the petitioner's prayer for fixation of her seniority with effect from the date when her batch-mates have been appointed as Deputy Superintendent of Police has been refused.

(2.) LEARNED counsel further submits that when the petitioner had wrongly been denied appointment on the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, she filed a writ application before Patna High Court. The Court having found that the petitioner has wrongly been denied appointment did direct the Authority to appoint her.

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records including the order passed by Patna High Court in a writ application preferred by the petitioner, it does appear that learned counsel for the petitioner conceded before the Court that the petitioner is claiming only her appointment and that she would not be claiming either seniority or any other benefits and that she would not be claiming deemed past service. The Court having taken into account the facts and circumstances as well as the statements made at the bar gave direction to the Authority to appoint the petitioner with prospective effect and at the same time, it was also stated that the petitioner would not be entitled to any other claim or any other service benefit on the basis of any deemed past service. If the petitioner, on passing such order, did consider that learned counsel should not have made such concession, the petitioner should have immediately preferred a review application or any other appropriate application but that was not done and now after more than a decade, this writ application has been filed claiming therein her seniority on the basis of the decisions referred to above. In all those decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the concession given by the learned counsel against any law or against the fundamental right would never thwart the right of the parties, but here the case is quite different where question of giving concession on the point of law is never involved.