Krishna Bahadur Pariyar And Others vs State Of Jharkhand And Others

Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J

Instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the memo no.348 dated 26.06.2023 contained in Annexure-17 issued by respondent no.6.

Petitioner no.1 to 3 are at present serving on the post of Hawaldar. Petitioner nos.1, 2 and 3 were originally appointed as Beguiler on 22.11.2002, 27.12.2001, 02.01.2002 respectively. Whereas Petitioner No.4 is serving on the post of Sub Inspector.

In the year 2006, vide memo no.577 dated 18.05.2006, considering the performance of Petitioner nos. 1 to 3 in 6th All India Band Competition, 2005 in which they were awarded with Gold Medal and in terms of the Police Order No.219/A/90, they were granted out of turn promotion vide memo no.577 dated 18.05.2006 (Annexure-1). In the said order, it was specifically mentioned that in the next rank, their seniority shall be from the date of promotion i.e. 25.02.2005. Consequent upon their promotion, their pay scale was accordingly fixed vide memo no.2513 dated 27.05.2006 and the seniority list was published vide memo no.4903 dated 23.11.2020 issued by the office of respondent no.7, the name of petitioner nos.1, 2 and 3 figures at serial nos.14, 12 and 13 respectively in the said seniority list.

The main grievance of the petitioner is that the seniority list has been given a short shrift and has been bypassed while sending the police personnel for training vide memo no.924 dated 19.05.2023 for considering them for promotion to the next higher post. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred W.P.(S) No.3138 of 2023 which was disposed of by the order dated 23.06.2023 directing the respondents to dispose of the representation of the petitioners by reasoned order by 27.06.2023.

In compliance to the direction of Commandant, JAP-I vide letter dated 26.06.2023 (Annexure-17) has rejected the representation of the petitioners and the seniority of the petitioners were not restored and junior police personnel were sent for training. This memo is under challenge in the present writ petition.

It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of petitioners that no reason has been assigned to supersede and bypassing the seniority of these petitioners. Letter no.3463 dated 03.06.2022 which has been referred and relied, has no relevance to the present case of the promotion of the petitioners. The said letter has been misinterpreted to fix the seniority for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector and Inspector from the basic cadre of the Constable. The said interpretation is absurd and is against the basic tenets of service jurisprudence. The feeder post of Sub-Inspector is A.S.I. or Hawaldar and not Constable, therefore, the promotion has to be granted as per seniority as on the feeder post and not as per the basic cadre.

Learned counsel on behalf of State has defended the impugned order.

After having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides, the impugned order is not sustainable for the following reason:-

Petitioner nos.1-3 were granted out of turn promotion to the post of Hawaldar by order dated 18.05.2006 vide memo no.577 which is specifically mentions that while considering proportion to the next higher rank, the seniority of these petitioners will be considered accordingly. Petitioner no.4-Sunil Bahadur was granted out of turn promotion to the post of Hawaldar vide memo no.333 dated 14.03.2012 and he was granted promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector vide memo no.4111 dated 07.08.2015. After promotion, he was accordingly placed in the seniority list issued by the Commandant JAP-I vide letter dated 23.11.2020 at serial no.17.

The main grievance of the petitioner nos.1-3 is that the police personnel lower in the seniority as per the seniority list issued on 23.11.2020, those junior to him in seniority, have been sent for training for being considered for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector. Whereas those junior under rank to petitioner no.4, has been sent for to the post of Inspector.

Secondly, reference to letter of Government which has been relied to supersede these petitioners while sending the juniors to them for training, is not relevant and the letters have been wrongly interpreted to mean that seniority in the basic cadre and not on feeder post shall be reckoned with while considering promotion. When it comes to promotion to a higher rank, it is the seniority on the feeder post that is to be considered. In the case of petitioner nos.1-3, the feeder post for the intended post of Sub-Inspector is ASI/Hawaldar, whereas for the post of Inspector, the feeder post is Sub Inspector and therefore, the seniority as appearing at the basic cadre of Constable cannot be considered.

The impugned letters/order is not sustainable and is accordingly, set aside. The petitioners’ seniority be restored as per the seniority list in the feeder cadre and they are directed to be considered for being sent for training for promotion to the next higher rank as per their seniority on the feeder post.

The writ petition, is accordingly, allowed. Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of.