ASHIM KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the captioned writ application, prayer has been made for direction to respondents to correct the seniority position of the petitioner and place the name of the petitioner as per guidelines issued and put the name of the petitioner in appropriate place in the cadre of literate constable, after correcting of Force order no. 96/2008 dated 29.01.2008 by which seniority position of the petitioner has been changed without notice. Further, prayer has been made by the petitioner not to give effect the force order dated 29.01.2008 vide Annexure-8 to the writ petition.

(2.) The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner was initially appointed as Constable in Bihar Military Police on 24.09.1987, now known as Jharkhand Armed Police (JAP), after bifurcation of the State of Jharkhand. In the year 1989 different posts were created for Bihar Military Police including the posts of literate constable and four posts of literate constable were created for head office. It has been envisaged that appointment in Reserve Office will be made on the basis of option, seniority, service record and also in terms of passing the matriculation examination as evident from Annexure-2 to the writ petition. In pursuance to the guidelines vide Annexure-1 & 2 to the writ application, the petitioner submitted his option for literate constable. As per the option exercised by the petitioner, the petitioner's seniority list was to be determined on the date of appointment, date of birth and date of passing of matriculation examination which is the basis of deciding the seniority as evident from Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The Force order no. 89 of 2002 dated 08.07.2002 vide Annexure-4 to the writ petition envisages that the seniority is to be determined on the basis of date of appointment, date of birth and date of passing of matriculation examination. Seniority list was prepared on 10.05.2007 vide Annexure-6 of the writ petition, strictly on the basis of the guidelines wherein, the name of the petitioner is found place at Serial No. 4 and the said seniority has been prepared basing on the guidelines vide Annexure-2, 3 & 4 to the writ petition. It has further been averred that the said seniority list has been cancelled vide Annexure-7 to the writ petition without any rhyme and reason and vide Force order no. 96 of 2008 dated 29.01.2008, the seniority position of the petitioner has been changed without any notice wherein, the petitioner has been placed at Serial No. 6. Being aggrieved by the improper placement in the seniority list vide Annexure-8 of the writ petition, the petitioner submitted representation dated 26.07.2008 for proper placement in the gradation list. Since, the said representation submitted by the petitioner did not evoke any response, the petitioner being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents, has been constrained to approach this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievance.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the impugned Force order no. 96 of 2008 vide Annexure-8 to the writ petition smacks of arbitrary exercise of power since the seniority position of the petitioner has been changed unilaterally without any notice. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondents ought to have considered the force orders, circular issued by the department for deciding the seniority and due to the impugned force order vide Annexure-8 to the writ petition, the guidelines issued vide Annexures-2 to 5 have been given a go by, whereby the position of the petitioner in the seniority list has been incorrectly fixed. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned force order no. 96 of 2008 vide Annexure-8 to the writ petition being bald and cryptic, is liable to be set aside so far as the position of the petitioner in the gradation list is concerned.