SITA RAM PRASAD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties. In the instant writ application petitioner has sought direction upon the respondents to consider his case for promotion from 1994 from the date on which his juniors were promoted. According to the petitioner he was appointed as a writer constable on 14.2.1966 and promoted as Assistant Sub Inspector of police in the year 1971. Later on he was promoted as Sub Inspector of Police in the parent State of Bihar. After the bifurcation of the State of Bihar he was posted within the State of Jharkhand and retired on 1.7.2004. As per the petitioner, although in the year 2001 in the seniority list the petitioner was at Serial no. 94 but the case of his promotion was not considered along with others in the absence of the service book from the erstwhile place of posting falling under the State of Bihar. Petitioner has also come before this Court in W.P.S. No. 6426 of 2003 for the same relief, which was disposed of by the order dated 24.12.2003 allowing him to make a representation before the Respondent No. 2, the Director General of Police, Jharkhand, who was further directed to pass a reasoned order within stipulated time upon such representation. However, according to the petitioner the respondents, till his date of retirement had not promoted him nor passed any reasoned order. Ultimately he moved this Court after retirement for consideration of his claim as his juniors have been promoted, subsequently.

(2.) According to the respondents the gradation list in respect of the petitioner and other employees falling in the cadre were prepared as per the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Court in the judgments delivered in several cases and it has been stated that as per the gradation list no Sub Inspector belonging to petitioner's category appointed after 1980, has been promoted to the rank of Inspector of Police. As such, no discrimination arises in the matter. By referring to Annexure-A, minutes of the meeting of the Promotion Committee held under the chairmanship of the Director General of Police on 19.2.2004, it is stated by the respondents in para 8 of their counter affidavit that case of the petitioner was considered but petitioner was found unfit by the Board on account of unsatisfactory service for promotion from 1994 onwards. Respondents have further stated that matter is related to period of undivided Bihar and petitioner had not impleaded the State of Bihar as party for seeking such relief which has been preferred in the year 2004 after 11 years from 1994.

(3.) From the facts which has been narrated herein above and upon hearing the counsel for the parties it appears that petitioner has not able to make out a case of discrimination as the document referred at Annexure -2 dated 24.12.2003 is about the list of employees whose service book were not available at the office of the Police Headquarters, Ranchi from their previous place of posting under the parent State of Bihar in which name of the petitioner also occur. However, in the D.P.C. held in the year 2004 respondents have found the petitioner unfit for promotion on account of unsatisfactory services, which has not been challenged by the petitioner and no rejoinder to the said decision has been filed by the petitioner. Petitioner has also retired on 1.7.2004