IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.3030 of 2006
RAJBANS RAM S/O LATE RAGHUNATH RAM R/O VILL-
+ PO-CHANDRA KAITHI, PS- CHEUARI, DISTT-
ROHTAS----------------------PETITIONER
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECY. GOVT. OF
BIHAR, PATNA
2. THE D.G.-CUM- I.G. OF POLICE,BIHAR, PATNA
3. THE ZONAL I.G. DARBHANGA ZONE DARBHANGA
4. THE D.I.G. OF POLICE DARBHANGA RANGE,DARBHANGA
5. THE S.P. MADHUBANI.---------RESPONDENTS
-----------
For the Petitioner: Mr. Pranav Kumar, Advocate
For the State: Md. Anis Akhtar, A.C. to AAG-10
———–
2 25.10.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
No doubt petitioner has been now granted
promotion on the post of Sub Inspector of Police (Armed) by
virtue of a notification issued by the respondent on 17.6.2008 but
that does not satisfy the petitioner because many a juniors to the
petitioner had been granted this promotion much earlier.
In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State
it has been indicated that the case of the petitioner was not placed
before the Regional Board as it was evident from his service book
that the petitioner’s service was not confirmed (Sampusht) on the
post of Havildar at the relevant time. That was one of the primary
reasons why the Board could not consider his case for promotion.
The moment that formality is completed the authority have issued
necessary order for promotion on 17.6.2008.
The ground for non-consideration of the case of
the petitioner for promotion as urged or indicated by the
respondents is no ground because it was the duty of the
respondents to ensure that the petitioner’s service was confirmed
-2-
as he had been working on the post for many a years. In action on
the part of the petitioner will not accrue in favour of the
respondents to the detriment of the petitioner. Submission is that
the petitioner was at least entitled for promotion from the date his
juniors were given promotion to the higher rank.
This writ application is disposed of with a
direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the
petitioner for grant of benefit of promotion from the date his
juniors had been given such a promotion because there is nothing
on record to show that there is any other impediment in the way of
the petitioner.
It is also the contention of the petitioner that the
petitioner is also eligible and entitled for promotion to the next
higher rank since some of the juniors to the petitioner had been
given promotion by the respondents.
It is another aspect of the matter which ought to be
considered by the respondents. All these exercise must be done
within a reasonable time frame from the date the petitioner
approaches the concerned authority with a copy of this order.
This writ application is disposed of with the
observation as above.
RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)