M.Y. Eqbal, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. R. Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs. Ritu Kumar, learned Government Pleader No. IV.
(2.) IN this writ application the petitioner seeks appropriate direction upon the respondents to treat him as a substantively promoted employee on the post of Class I service of the Animal Husbandry Department w.e.f. March 1986 and to include the name of the petitioner in the final gradation list. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner was appointed as a Touring Veterinary Officer in 1959 in the Department of Animal Husbandry and in 1979 he was promoted to the post of Assistant Director which is Class II post. In the year 1986 the petitioner along with others was granted promotion in Junior Selection Grade (in Class I service) The petitioner's case is that the promotion given in 1986 was a regular promotion after approval of the departmental promotion committee but arbitrarily the word "ad hoc" was added in the promotion order. In 1994 various other persons were given promotion in Junior Selection Grade when the gradation list of Class I officers of the Animal Husbandry was prepared, the name of the petitioner was not even mentioned therein. The petitioner filed representation in 1994 against final gradation list but the representation of the petitioner was not dealt with by the respondents and he was not included in the final gradation list. The respondents' case in the counter affidavit is that the petitioner entered in the service of the Bihar Animal Husbandry Department in 1979 through direct appointment. The provisional gradation list was prepared and on that basis the petitioner was promoted to Class I service on ad hoc basis along with other officers in 1986. However after this ad hoc promotion a dispute arose between the promoted officers which resulted in filing a writ petition being CWJC No. 284 of 1987. On the basis of judgment passed by this Court a final gradation list of the officers according to their seniority was prepared by the Department and was circulated vide notification dated 20.12.91. In the said gradation list the name of the petitioner stood at Serial No. 265. It is stated by the respondents that the petitioner never protested against his position shown in the final gradation list.
(3.) MR . R. Krishna learned counsel mainly contended that admittedly petitioner was given ad hoc promotion in Class I service in 1986 and on the basis of ad hoc promotion the petitioner continued on the said post and recently superannuated. According to the learned counsel when the ad hoc promotion granted to the petitioner was not ever cancelled he is entitled to be treated as in Class I service. The submission of the learned counsel cannot be accepted for the reason that ad hoc promotion was virtually cancelled in as much as in supercession of the notification giving ad hoc promotion, a notification was issued on 31.1.94 giving regular promotion to the persons according to final gradation list which was prepared, in 1991 after the dispute was finally resolved by the High Court, in the aforementioned writ petition. It is well settled that ad hoc promotion cannot be taken into consideration for deciding the inter se seniority. Admittedly the final gradation list which was prepared in 1991 was not challenged by the petitioner and in that view of the matter the petitioner cannot be treated to be in Class I service on the basis of ad hoc promotion given in 1986.;