IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No.214 of 2005
Shri Blacious Toppo & Others........................................Petitioners
Vrs.
The State of Jharkhand & Others..................................Respondents
PRESENT : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR SINHA
For the petitioners : Mr.B.B.Pandey, Sr. Advocate &
Mr.Satyendra Nath Singh, Advocate.
For the respondents : M/s A.Allam, & A.K.Kashyap, Sr.Advocates
----------------
C.A.V. on 20.11.2008 Pronounced on : 28.11.2008
ORDER
1. The present writ petition has been preferred for issuance of an
appropriate writ, order or direction to declare that the Vigilance Bureau of
Vigilance Department in which the petitioners are working as a distinct and
separate cadre from the department of regular police force in the State. It has
further been prayed for issuance of a mandamus to consider the case of
promotion of the petitioners to the post of Inspector of Police, Vigilance
Bureau. The petitioners submit that even the advertisement was made by the
State Government for recruitment of police constables for the Vigilance
Department.
2. The counsel for the respondents have submitted that the
Vigilance Bureau of Jharkhand is not a separate and distinct cadre from the
Department of regular Police Force rather it is a supplementary unit of
Jharkhand State Police made for special investigation of criminal cases
concerned with the allegations of corruption and disproportionate assets
against the State Government employees. It has also been contended that
even though the constables are directly appointed in the Vigilance Bureau but
the same cannot be said to be a separate and distinct cadre since the
promotion to the higher rank is done according to the seniority in the general
police and this fact is further corroborated by the letter dated 5.3.2005 issued
by the Vigilance Bureau, Bihar in response to letter dated 24.1.2003 issued by
the Vigilance Bureau of Jharkhand.
3. Be that as it may, neither the police manual nor any provision
and or rule prohibits such deputation or interchangeability to justify the claim
of the petitioner with regard to the fact that the Vigilance is a separate cadre.
There are no rules for sending on deputation members of the police force to
the Vigilance Department and the State also submitted therein that the
members of Vigilance Department are also not sending them on deputation to
other department of police force. This was an interim order which merged in
2.
subsequent orders. Again vide order dated 31.8.2004 the Hon’ble High Court
of Judicature at Patna directed the Director General of Police to provide
adequate numbers of officers so that the functioning of the Vigilance
Department does not suffer. The aforesaid direction clearly proves the
interchangeability from the Police Department to Vigilance Department vice
versa.
4. It appears that after the re-organization Act and creation of
Jharkhand State the Jharkhand Vigilance Bureau was re-organised and
different posts were created by the State Government for efficient working of
the Bureau and it was decided by the Jharkhand State Government to fill up all
newly created posts on deputation and contract basis which is apparent from
the memo issued by the Cabinet Secretariat and Coordination Department
(Vigilance) Sankalp Sankhya-Vigilance 91/2001, 262, Ranchi dated 4th May,
2001.
5. It is, thus, clear that the Vigilance Bureau of Jharkhand is not a
distinct and close cadre. The staffs at the Vigilance Bureau as well as in the
Police Department are governed by the same Police Manual Rules and other
Government decisions and even the benefit of Assured Career Promotion and
other benefits are given to the Vigilance Bureau, Jharkhand in accordance with
the Police Manual. Thus, the contention that they have been directly
appointed will be of no consequence, more so, when there is direct
appointment of constables in supplementary unit of general police like Special
Branch, C.I.D., G.R.P. etc. for filling up of the vacancies and all are governed
by the common police manual and common police force and thus the
contention raised that they are separate and in close cadre is on the face of it
erroneous and unsustainable in the eyes of law. Even otherwise the prayer for
issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to declare it as a separate cadre in absence of
any legal, accrued or vested right is not maintainable.
6. This writ petitioner, being devoid of any merit, is accordingly dismissed.
(Ajit Kumar Sinha,J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated 28.11.2008
NKC/ A.F.R.