BALWANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application the petitioners have prayed for issuance of appropnate direction upon the respondents to consider the ad hoc Promotion period from 17.11.1981 to 4.9.1993 for the purpose of their seniority as they have discharged the duty of Sub -Inspector (A) on the basis of ad hoc promotion and insert their names after serial No. 9 of the Seniority list dated 4.12.1999 and further to consider their case for promotion in the post of Inspector as their juniors have been promoted.

(2.) PETITIONERS case inter alia is that in 1963 and 1964 they were appointed as Con stable in Bihar Military Police. In 1975 petitioner No. 1 passed the Senior Promotion Course, while petitioner No. 2 passed the said course in 1977. In 1976 petitioner No. 1 was promoted on the post of Naik and similarly in 1978 petitioner No. 2 was promoted to the post of Naik. In the year 1979 both the petitioners were promoted as hawaldars and on 19.2.1980 they were confirmed as Hawaldars. On 17.11.1981, the concerned respondent namely, the Inspector General of Police, Bihar Military Police issued officer Order, whereby petitioners were given ad hoc Promotion on the post of Jamadars (Instructors) which is equivalent to the post of Sub -Inspector. Both the petitioners alleged to have been working on the said post from 1979 and 1980 respectively without any break and they were paid salary of the post of Sub -Inspector regularly. Petitioners therefore claimed that they are entitled to the benefit of the period of their ad hoc services for the purpose of determining their intere se seniority. Their grievance is that in view of their promotion in 1981 on ad hoc basis, they should be placed just after Sl. No. 9 in the seniority list but they were left out and on the other hand large number of juniors have been placed over and above of the petitioners in the seniority list.

(3.) ADMITTED facts are that these petitioners were appointed as constables in 1963 and 1964. In 1976 petitioner No. 1 was promoted on the post of Naik and in 1978 petitioner No. 2 was also promoted to the post of Naik. In 1979, both the petitioners were promoted as Havildars and the said promotion was confirmed in 1980. Just in the next year i.e. in 1981 these two petitioners alongwith others were given ad hoc promotion on the post of Jamadars (Instructors) which is equivalent to the post of Sub -Inspector. From 17.11.1981 to 4.9.1993 petitioners said to have been continued on the post of Jamadars on the basis of ad hoc promotion. It is also not disputed that the ad hoc promotion granted to the petitioners on 17.11.1981 was confirmed with effect from 4.9.1993. Petitioners therefore claimed that the ad hoc promotion period from 17.11.1981 to 4.9.1993 be counted for the purpose of their seniority so that they can now be promoted to the post of Inspector. The stand taken by the respondents is that since the promotion of the petitioners were made regular in 1993 vide Order No. 59/93 dated 4.9.1993 the seniority has been counted from 4.9.1993 and not from 17. 11.1981: