Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, C.J., HARISH KUMAR, J
Gangeshwar Sharma, Son of Late Ram Charan Singh – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
Letters Patent Appeal No.435 of 2022 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14332 of 2010
Decided on : 04-04-2024
PROMOTION - Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police - Bihar Police Manual, Rule 648(b) - The court discussed Rule 648(b) of the Bihar Police Manual, which mandates that a Deputy Superintendent must pass an Accounts examination for confirmation in the post. The court interpreted this rule to conclude that the appellant's failure to pass the examination precluded his promotion to Senior Deputy Superintendent, despite claims of junior officers being promoted. The court emphasized the necessity of fulfilling mandatory requirements for promotion, which influenced its decision to uphold the dismissal of the appellant's writ petition.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant sought promotion to the post of Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police, claiming that his juniors were promoted while he was not, primarily due to his lack of confirmation as Deputy Superintendent of Police, which was contingent upon passing a mandatory Accounts examination.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant had not provided evidence of his confirmation in the final seniority list of Deputy Superintendent and acknowledged his admission of not passing the required Accounts examination, which was a prerequisite for promotion.
Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to promotion to Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police despite not passing the mandatory Accounts examination as required by the Bihar Police Manual.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Bihar Police Manual, specifically Rule 648(b), is essential for promotion. The appellant's failure to pass the Accounts examination disqualified him from being confirmed in the post of Deputy Superintendent, thereby barring his promotion to Senior Deputy Superintendent.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appellant's claim for retrospective promotion to Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police, but deleted the cost imposed by the lower court.
JUDGMENT :
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, C.J.
The writ-petitioner is the appellant, who seeks promotion to the post of Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police (Sr. Dy.S.P.). The appellant was aggrieved with the fact that his claim to the post of Sr. Dy.S.P was rejected ignoring the fact that his juniors were given such promotion; that too on the only ground that the appellant was not confirmed as Dy. Superintendent of Police (Dy.S.P.). It is the case of the appellant that the appellant’s retrospective promotion itself was after his retirement.
2. The impugned judgment held that the appellant has not produced any material to show that he was confirmed in the final seniority list of Dy.S.P. On the above finding, the writ petition was dismissed with a cost of Rs. 5,000/-to be remitted to the Patna High Court Legal Services Committee. Liberty was also reserved to file a fresh petition with fresh materials.
3. Obviously, the appellant does not have any further material to be produced and hence the appeal has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant took us through the writ petition and the documents produced therein to show us that there were persons who were promoted along with him; or rather on the very same date, as he was granted retrospective promotion from 01.06.1994. Even persons who were promoted later to that date, were accommodated in the post of Sr. Dy.S.P. The appellant took us through Annexure-2 to 8 produced and also relied on Annexure 12 and the statements made in the supplementary counter affidavit in support of the same. The appellant’s contention is that he should be granted promotion as a Sr. Dy.S.P.
5. Learned AAG-3, however, pointed out that the appellant’s claim was once considered in CWJC No. 1714 of 2016 and he was directed to make a representation. A representation was made which was rejected. It is specifically pointed out that the appellant who had not passed the Accounts examination; which was mandatory as per Rule 648(b) of the Bihar Police Manual was not confirmed in the post of Dy.S.P. This is what stood against his further promotion and all the juniors he has named in the writ petition have qualified in the Accounts examination.
6. The appellant’s claim has a chequered career. The appellant was promoted as a Dy.S.P on 04.03.1999 pursuant to a writ proceeding. The appellant had approached this Court by CWJC No. 3991 of 1996, the judgment in which is produced as Annexure-2; which decision records his service history. The appellant was appointed as a Steno-Sub-Inspector of Police on 26.06.1969 and then promoted as Sub-Inspector of Police, in which post he was confirmed with effect from 05.08.1971. The appellant was then promoted to the post of Inspector of Police with effect from 01.10.1981 after the recommendation of the Central Selection Board and was confirmed as Inspector of Police with effect from 01.01.1988. The appellant was duly performing the duties of an Inspector of Police when according to him persons who were appointed later to him or promoted on an officiating basis to the post of Inspector of Police were granted promotion to the higher post of Dy.S.P. since June, 1994. It was admitted by the Government that persons who were promoted later than the appellant to the post of Inspector of Police had been promoted to the post of Dy.S.P.
7. This Court by Annexure-2 directed the respondents to find out as to whether any person who had been promoted to the post of Inspector of Police on or after 01.10.1981 had been promoted to the higher post of Dy.S.P. The appellant was also given liberty to apprise the respondents about such promotions. It was directed that on finding any junior to have been promoted, the respondents would consider the case of the appellant also for such promotion from the date of promotion of such junior.
8. Annexure-3 was the order of promotion of the appellant on 04.03.1999, which obviously did not reckon the judgment of this Court produced as Annexure-2. The appellant was before this Co
A Deputy Superintendent of Police must pass the Accounts examination as per Rule 648(b) of the Bihar Police Manual to be confirmed in the post and eligible for further promotion.
Promotion cannot be denied solely based on the number of past punishments without considering their nature and timing, ensuring equal treatment under Article 14.
Principle of accelerated/jump up seniority would not be applicable and petitioner was required to be considered as per seniority list of Inspectors for induction into H.P.P. Services.
Promotional rights in employment are subject to employer discretion and cannot be claimed retroactively without clear evidence of wrongful delay or bad faith.
Retrospective promotions in public service must adhere to established procedures and cannot disrupt settled seniority.
Retrospective promotions in public service must adhere to established procedures and cannot disrupt settled seniority.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the promotion cannot be withheld merely because some disciplinary/criminal proceedings are pending against the employee, as per the Sealed Cov....
Retrospective promotion cannot be claimed as a matter of right when disciplinary proceedings or penalties were operative at the time of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) assessment, and prom....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
