High Court Patna High Court - Orders

Dr.Pramod Kumar Sinha &Amp; Ors vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 16 November, 2010

Patna High Court – Orders
Dr.Pramod Kumar Sinha &Amp; Ors vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 16 November, 2010
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                         CWJC No.12662 of 2009
                     DR.PRASHANT KUMAR VERMA
                                Versus
                       THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
                                WITH
                         CWJC No.10847 of 2010
                    DR.PRAMOD KUMAR SINHA & ORS
                                Versus
                       THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
                               -----------

09 16.11.2010 Both the writ petitions are taken up together because

the challenge is to the same notification. In the first writ petition,

petitioner who is a teaching doctor had primarily claimed two reliefs.

First with regard to his promotion in compliance with order passed in

his earlier writ petition being C.W.J.C. No.7747 of 1999 and second

on finding that respondent no.5 who was originally placed below him

in the gradation list was suddenly given a jump above him. He has

sought to challenge the same.

While the matter was being argued, respondent no.5 to

substantiate that he was always senior to the petitioner instead whereof

respondent no.5 in the second writ petition that is C.W.J.C. No.10847

of 2010 has filed a purported gradation list/panel of the year 1992 to

show that he was placed at serial no.8 whereas Dr. Pramod Kumar

Sinha was placed at serial no.33. Accordingly, it was suggested on

behalf of respondent no.5 that he being senior and having been left out

that mistake has now been corrected and he has been brought to the

position of serial no.34A. The question then arose as to the

authenticity of this 1992 gradation list/panel of General Medicine.

Writ petitioners filed another copy purporting of the same panel. Here
-2-

the position is reversed. Dr. Pramod Kumar Sinha is shown at serial

no.17 and Dr. Rahul Kumar, respondent no.5 is shown at serial no.33.

Each is accusing other of bringing on record a wrong document and

unfortunately the State is having the last laugh. State being the

custodian of the document and the author of the document by this time

should have placed the document on record and produced the original

but it chooses not to do so. It should not left to the Court to direct to

produce the records in relation thereto and place on affidavit as to

which of the two documents is correct by direct evidence.

Put up this case under the same heading on 29th

November, 2010 when State would produce the original records and

file affidavit to the said effect.

Trivedi/                          (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)