- (1.) In this writ application the petitioners have prayed for quashing the decision dated 10.10.2012 ( Annexure-3) issued by I/C Deputy Inspector General of Police (Personnel), Jharkhand, Ranchi, whereby respondents took policy decision to revise the final seniority-list of the petitioners. Petitioners further prayed for quashing the order as contained in Memo no.280 dated 17.02.2014 ( Annexure-5), whereby petitioners have been reverted back from the post of Inspector of Police to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police.
(2.) It is stated that petitioners were initially appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police in the year 1994-95. Thereafter, their final seniority list ( Annexure-1) published by the competent authority in the year 2005. Thereafter, petitioners were promoted to the post of Inspector vide order dated 07.01.2013 ( Annexure-2). It is stated that suddenly, respondents vide Memo no. 3154 dated 10.10.2012 took decision to revise the seniority-list of the petitioners on the basis of an order passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 1842 of 2012. It is stated that in the aforesaid order, this Court has not given any direction to the respondents to revise the seniority-list, rather this Court directed the respondents to dispose of the representation of the petitioners namely, Ashok Kumar Singh and Yogya Narayan Tiwary in accordance with the law, rules, regulations and policies etc.
(3.) It is submitted that in Rule 689(C) of the Police Manual as well the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers Association and others Vs State of Maharashtra and others, 1990 AIR(SC) 1607, it is specifically mentioned that seniority list will be be prepared as per the date of recruitment. But the respondents are trying to revise the seniority-list on the basis of circular issued in the year 1953 as contained in Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. It is submitted that the aforesaid circular had already lost its force in the year 1978 after coming into force of the Police Manual". Accordingly, it is stated that the aforesaid circular has no force, but the respondents-authority are trying to enforce it on same extraneous pressure. Under the said circumstance, the action of the respondents in taking the aforesaid policy decision is against the law. It is further submitted that even before taking the aforesaid policy decision to revise the seniority-list, no opportunity of hearing given to the petitioners. It is further submitted that even before reverting the petitioners from the post of Inspector to the post of SubInspector, no opportunity of hearing given to them. Thus, the aforesaid orders are violative of the principle of natural justice.;