IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI.
W.P. (S) No. 6900 of 2005
...
Birendra Kumar Pandey ... ... Petitioner
-V e r s u s-
1. State of Jharkhand
2. Director General of Police, Jharkhand.
3. Director General of Police, Bihar.
4. Zonal Inspector General of Police, Ranchi, Jharkhand.
5. Dy. Inspector General of Police,k Palamau ... Respondents.
...
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.G.R. PATNAIK.
...
For the Petitioner : - Mr. Dr. S. N. Pathak, Advocate.
For the Respondent-State : - J.C. to A.G.
...
C.A.V. On: - 04/11/2009 Delivered On: - 6/11/2009
...
5/ 6.11.2009
Petitioner, in this writ application, has prayed for the following
reliefs: –
(a) For issuance of a writ of certiorari
for quashing the district order No. 1418
dated-17.11.2000, issued pursuant to the
order dated-09.11.2000, by the Director
General of Police, Bihar.
(b) For issuance of a writ in the nature of
mandamus commanding upon the
Respondents to promote the petitioner to the
post of Steno/Typist A.S.I.
(c) For a direction to the Respondents to
pay the petitioner his salary for the post of
Steno/Typist A.S.I. on which, he has been
officiating since, 1997.
2. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondents.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for
the Respondents.
4. Facts of the petitioner’s case are as follows: –
The petitioner was appointed as a
Constable in the year 1988 in the State
Police Service and after his completing the
requisite Training, he was posted in the
Office of the Superintendent of Police,
Palamau, where he was allotted the work of
Steno/Typist.
His superiors in Office, including the
Deputy Inspector General of Police and the
Inspector General of Police, recommended
[2]
[W.P. (S) No. 6900 of 2005]
his name vide Annexure-1 series, to post
him as a Typist-cum-Steno A.S.I.
On considering the
recommendations, the petitioner was
promoted to the post of Steno/Typist A.S.I.
on ad hoc basis initially for a period of four
months and a recommendation was
forwarded to the Headquarters, Bihar for his
regular promotion by the Deputy Inspector
General of Police.
Instead of regularizing his services
on the aforesaid post, by the orders of the
Superintendent of Police of the District
where the petitioner was employed, the
petitioner was reverted to the post of
Constable and posted in the District Police
in the Department.
However, subsequently, by the
orders of the Inspector General of Police, the
petitioner was again granted ad hoc
promotion on 24.10.2000 to the post of
Steno/Typist, A.S.I.
Thereafter, at the time of bifurcation
of the State of Bihar, the Deputy Inspector
General of Police, Headquarters, Bihar,
issued an order on 09.11.2000 for reverting
the petitioner to the post of Constable and
this order was implemented by the
impugned order dated-17.11.2000
(Annexure-4).
The petitioner claims that against the
aforesaid order, he had submitted several
representations, but the same were not
considered.
The petitioner’s grievance is that he
had admittedly, officiated in the higher post
of Steno/Typist A.S.I. for a considerable
period continuously and was therefore,
entitled to be promoted to the aforesaid post.
[3]
[W.P. (S) No. 6900 of 2005]
His further grievance is that though he was
made to officiate and work on the higher
post of Steno/Typist, A.S.I. but he was never
paid the salary applicable to the aforesaid
post nor was he given any officiating pay at
all, although he has been working on the
post since 1997 and he is still working on
the aforesaid post.
The petitioner’s further grievance is
that another co-employee, namely, one
Ramnath Pandey, who was also inducted in
service initially as a Constable and was
granted ad hoc promotion to the post of
Steno/Typist A.S.I., his services have since
been regularized on the higher post, whereas
the petitioner has been arbitrarily reverted to
the post of Constable instead of regularizing
him on the post.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondents would submit that
the substantive post to which the petitioner was appointed is that of the Constable,
and since he knew Typing, his services for typing work was also taken, as per
requirement, from time to time. Learned counsel argues that merely because his
services have been engaged as a Typist, the petitioner cannot claim promotion to
the rank of Steno/Typist A.S.I., since the procedure as laid down for promotion,
stipulates that such promotions should be considered only in accordance with
seniority and that too after the candidate concerned is declared passed in the
departmental examination conducted by the Police Headquarters and declared by
the D.G. Board.
Learned counsel contends further that the Range D.I.G. has
no authority to promote or to appoint any officer on the post of A.S.I. and as per
the procedure laid down in Appendix 41 of the Police Manual. Such appointments
on promotion are to be done only after conducting the examinations by the Board.
On the aforesaid basis, learned counsel would want to justify the order of the
revocation of the petitioner’s ad hoc promotion.
6. The facts which emerge from the rival submissions are that the
petitioner was appointed as a literate Constable and he was called upon to
officiate on the post of Steno/Typist A.S.I. Such engagement of the petitioner on
the higher post was admittedly taken ever since, 1997 by way of ad hoc
[4]
[W.P. (S) No. 6900 of 2005]
promotion for limited periods and such periods were extended from time to time
by fresh Notifications.
7. It appears therefore, that the petitioner’s claim for his
promotion/regularization in service on the post of Steno/Typist, A.S.I. is on the
only ground that his efficiency was tested by his concerned superiors in office and
they being satisfied, have engaged him, almost continuously, to officiate in the
aforesaid post.
8. Admittedly, the Rules referred to by the learned counsel for the
Respondents under Appendix 41 of the Police Manual and under Rules 660 and
660 A of the Police Manual lay down the procedure for appointment/promotion.
The petitioner has neither appeared in any such departmental examinations nor
has he been declared by the Board as qualified for his promotion.
9. The fact that the petitioner was given ad hoc promotions from time
to time would only signify that he was given to officiate in the higher post though
retaining his lien on the substantial post of Constable. Since the grant of
promotion of the petitioner has to be guided by the specific Rules, the
Respondents cannot possibly be directed to ignore the Rules and proceed to
promote the petitioner on the higher post, merely on the basis of his claim of
efficiency and long officiation.
10. I am conscious of the fact that the petitioner has been made to
officiate on the higher post continuously for a long period. This would only entitle
the petitioner to claim for consideration of his case for his promotion to the higher
post but nevertheless, subject to his qualifying of the requisite Tests. He would be
entitled to be called upon to appear at the requisite Tests by the Board to qualify
and prove his competence. The petitioner would however, be entitled to the
officiating pay for the period, he was made to officiate in the higher post.
11. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, I direct the
Respondents as follows: –
(i) The Respondents shall conduct the
requisite departmental examination to enable
the petitioner to appear at the same,
preferably within a period of six months
from the date of this order and upon the
petitioner qualifying at the prescribed Test,
shall take appropriate decision regarding the
petitioner’s promotion to the higher post.
(ii) The Respondents shall pay the
officiating pay to the petitioner for the
period his services are engaged in officiating
[5]
[W.P. (S) No. 6900 of 2005]capacity in the higher post of Steno/Typist,
A.S.I. Such payment shall be paid on and
from the date, such services were obtained
in the higher post.
12. With these observations, this writ application stands disposed of.
13. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the
Respondents.
(D.G.R. Patnaik, J.)
APK