RAJNIK GURUNG Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge to the seniority list of police constable as contained in force order no. 96/2008 bearing memo no. 627 dated 29.01.2008, Annexure-3 is being made by the petitioner through the instant writ petition after 5 years of its issuance in 2013. Petitioner is shown at serial no. 7 with date of appointment 22.11.1988 and date of passing 'Praveshika' in 1978 compared to persons at serial nos. 4 and 5 namely Devi Dayal singh and Sudesh Gurung, who were appointed in 1988 and 1993 respectively. In order to support the challenge to their seniority, petitioner has relied upon the police order at Annexure-1 dated 15.10.1987 issued by the Director Generalcum- Inspector General of Police, Bihar Patna, Annexure-1 provides that date of preparation of seniority for the literate constable cadre for the purposes of promotion to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector and for the purposes of preparation of seniority list of Hawaldar would be date of passing of 'Praveshika'.

(2.) As it appears from the pleadings on record specifically paragraphs-10 and 14 of the counter affidavit, these two persons at serial nos. 4 and 5 referred to hereinabove were brought into the literate constable cadre on issuance of memo no. 1504 dated 24.09.2002, Annexure-F. Petitioner applied on 30.01.2004 giving his option to be brought into literate cadre. Pursuant to petitioner's option, he was brought into the literate constable cadre on issuance of force order no. 50/2004, Annexure-E. Respondents have enclosed Annexure-B, which is force order no. 89 of 2002, in effect, delineating the principles relating to literate constable cadre and determination of seniority of incumbents joining the said cadre. This is dated 08.07.2002. Relevant paragraphs of the said force order are being noticed by the counsel for the respondents to submit that literate constable cadre is separate cadre which is to be created from the general sepoy cadre based upon their seniority, service records and passing of 'Praveshika' exam after seeking option from them. Seniority in such cadre would be determined on the basis of date of appointment, date of birth and date of passing of 'Praveshika' exam. It is explained by the learned counsel for the respondent that determination of seniority in the literate constable cadre with which petitioner is aggrieved has been made on consideration of the aforesaid rules and taking into account the fact that these two persons at serial nos. 4 and 5 had been brought into the literate constable cadre by virtue of the force order dated 24.09.2002, Annexure-F, taking into account the exercise of their option along with few other persons also. Since the petitioner gave his option on 30.01.2004 only, petitioner's position in seniority list has been placed below them. This is in consonance with the principles contained therein. He also points out that these two persons with whom petitioner is aggrieved have not been impleaded as respondents in the instant writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner in his reply submits that Annexure-2 bearing memo no. 1818 dated 20.11.2002 reiterates the principles relating to determination of seniority in the literate constable cadre based upon passing of the 'Praveshika' or matric exam.