The promotion granted to the petitioner by the Cabinet (Vigilance) Department was illegal, without jurisdiction, and void ab initio as it violated Rule 649 of the Bihar Police Manual and Article 16 of the Constitution of India.

S. B. Sinha, G. C. Bharuka, JJ.

1. Sri Rameshwar Nath Mishra filed a writ application in the Court claiming inter olia insurance of a writ or direction upon the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of deputy Superintendent of Police with effect from the date of his officiating promotion as his seniority is fixed on the basis of the continuous officiation i. e. from 1.1.1975.

2. The fact of the matter lies in a narrow compass.

3. The writ petitioner was appointed as literate constable on 21.4.1949. He was promoted to post of Sub-Inspector of Police on 17.12 1960 and was confirmed in the said post on 10.9.1973.

4. The petitioner, thereafter, was transferred to the department of vigilance and he joined there on 31.121974 He was promoted to the post of Inspector of Police by the then Inspector-Oeneral-cum-Special secretary, Cabinet (Vigilance) Department, Bihar, Patna; by an office order dated 1.1.1975.

5. By an office order dated 1.11.1980 the petitioner was granted scale of Selection Grade Inspector of Police. However, the period during which the petitioner officiated in the post of Inspector of Police was not being considered.

6. The petitioner filed several representations but the same were rejected. The petitioner contended that a similar question was raised in cwjc No.563 of 1985 (Kamla Singh and Ors. V/s. The State of Bihar) which was disposed of in the following terms :

"the petitioners were declared entitled to count their seniority as inspector and if the plea of State is accepted then the petitioners will not be getting any advantage out of their success in their earlier writ case except a bag of winds. I, therefore, hold that the petitioner must get their seniority In accordance with the direction given in annexure-3 and the respondent must give effect to the same while passing orders of promotion of the police Inspectors to the rank of the Deputy Superintendent of police. "

7. According to the petitioner, after the said writ application was allowed, the petitioners thereof were promoted to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. It has further been submitted that, similar other writ applications have also been disposed of by this Court.

8. The petitioner filed a supplementary affidavit alleging therein that various similar writ applications have been allowed by this Court The petitioner has contended that many persons who are junior to the petitioner in the light of the officiatirg promotion have been promoted to the post of deputy Superintendent of Police but the case of the petitioner had not been c6nsidered.

9. This writ application was disposed of by this Court on 5.8.1992 in the following terms ;

"heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Nobody appears on behalf of the State The petitioner has been officiating in the post of Inspector of police with effect from 1 1 1975 and he has been confirmed in the said post with effect from 1 11 1980. However, according to the petitioner, the period of officiation while he was posted in the said post of Inspector was neither given nor other benefits incidental thereto are being granted to the petitioner. It appears that in similar matters this Court in the case of Kamla Singh and others v The State of Bihar, in cwjc No 563 of 1935 Annexure-9 and in the case of Shri balram Dubey V/s. The State of Bihar and others, CWJC No.7723 of 1989 (Annexurc 11) directed to grant benefit of continuous officiation to the petitioner. Following the aforementioned decisions, we also direct the State to grant benefit of continuous officiation to the petitioner in accordance with law for determining the inter se seniority as also the consequential promotion. This application is, thus, disposed of with the aforementioned directions. "

10. However, on 23.101992 the State of Bihar filed a review application stating inter alia therein that certain facts were not pointed out to this Court at that point of time, and thus, the said order dated 5.8.1992 passed in CWJC No.4884 of 1990