M.KARPAGA VINAYAGAM, C.J. - (1.) THE question, which gives rise to filing of this writ petition, is as follows: Whether the date of appointment of the petitioners in the cadre of Steno Sub -Inspector of Police would be treated as the basis of determination of seniority in the general cadre of Sub -Inspector of Police or the date of entry into the general cadre of Sub -Inspector of Police would be the determinative factor to fix their seniority?
(2.) THE short facts are as follows: (A) The petitioners were initially appointed as Steno Sub -Inspector of Police in the year 1982 (petitioner Nos. 1 to 3) and 1985 (petitioner No. 4) and after completion of minimum length of service in the post of Steno Sub -Inspector of Police, the petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 in the year 1989 and the petitioner No. 4 in the year 1991 were taken to general cadre of Steno Sub -Inspector of Police on reversion. Some of the Steno Sub -Inspector of Police, who joined the general cadre on reversion from the cadre of Steno Sub -Inspector of Police, claiming seniority on the basis of their initial appointment as Steno Sub -Inspector of Police, filed a writ petition CWJC No. 6371/1990. In that case, Patna High Court decided that the seniority has to be fixed on the basis of their entry into the general cadre of Steno Sub -Inspector of Police and not from their initial appointment as Steno Sub -Inspector of Police. This was affirmed by the Supreme Court in SLP No. 568/1994. (B) In pursuance of the said orders passed by the Division Bench of Patna High Court and the Supreme Court, the D.G. -cum - I.G., Bihar, issued the impugned memo No. 3537/P -2 dated 22.9.2003, stating that the Steno Sub -Inspector of Police, who joined the general cadre of Sub -Inspector of Police on reversion, can claim seniority only from the date of entry into the general cadre of Sub -Inspector of Police and not from the date of appointment as Steno Sub -Inspector of Police. (C) Aggrieved by the same, the present petitioners, who were initially appointed as Steno Sub -Inspector of Police and subsequently joined the general cadre of Sub -Inspector of Police on reversion, have filed this writ petition seeking for quashing the impugned memo No. 3537/P -2 dated 29.9.2003. Mr. Rajiv Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, would make the following contentions, assailing the memo impugned. (I) The State of Bihar, vide its policy decision passed by the Cabinet, issued a Memo No. 3414 dated 4.9.1953 laying down the recruitment procedure, whereby the Steno Sub -Inspector of Police, on their absorption in the general cadre of Sub -Inspector of Police after completion of minimum length of service, will count their seniority from the date of their appointment as Steno Sub -Inspector of Police. The said memo is being followed from the year 1953. The memo impugned dated 22.9.2003 has been issued without cancelling the earlier memo and as such, it is not legal. (II) Clause (5) of Appendix 42 of the Police Manual mentions that the seniority of all the Sub -Inspectors and Deputy Superintendent of Police in their respective ranks, whether recruited directly or promoted will be counted from the date on which they were actually recruited. On that basis, a policy decision was taken in the year 1953, in pursuance of which the memo dated 4.9.1953 was issued by the Under Secretary to the Government, giving direction that there cannot be a distinction among the sub -Inspector of Police in the general cadre and Steno Sub -Inspector of Police in another cadre in the matter of seniority. In the light of the same, the order impugned cannot beheld to be valid. (III) The present case relates to merger of Steno Sub -Inspector cadre into Sub -Inspector cadre after completion of 5 years as Steno Sub -Inspector subject of selection. The method of recruitment and the scale are same for these two cadres. Even then the impugned memo has been issued on 22.9.2003 without getting any approval of the Cabinet as required under Section 12 of the Police Act. (IV) The judgment rendered by the Division Bench in CWJC No.6371/1990, which has been followed in CWJC Nos. 11211/2003 and 11667/2003, were not correctly decided as they did not take into consideration the policy decision of 1953, on the basis of which the memo has been issued on 4.9.1953. Therefore, the memo impugned, which is said to have been issued on the strength of the decisions referred to above, cannot be sustained. (V) Even assuming the impugned memo is legally and validly issued, the same is prospective and as such the benefits of seniority earned by the petitioners, who joined the general cadre of Sub -Inspector of Police long back, cannot be taken away by the impugned memo.
(3.) IN reply to the above submissions, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, namely learned Advocate General for the Government of Jharkhand, Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned JC to GA for the Government of Bihar and Mr. Kalyan Roy, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 8 and 9, who have subsequently been impleaded and who were originally appointed as Sub -Inspectors of Police, would make the following contentions: 1995 (1) BLJ 11, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court by the order dated 14.2.1994. In the absence of any valid reason to establish that the case of Bhagwat Prasad Singh was wrongly decided, a different view cannot at all be taken, that too when Bhagwat Prasad Singh case was affirmed by the Supreme Court. Further the same principles have been reiterated in the subsequent decisions rendered in CWJC Nos. 11211/2003 and 1667/2003 by the other Division Bench. (b) The circular or the memo issued in the year 1953 would not help the petitioners in view of the fact that the said memo issued is a mere proposal, which has been made by the Police Department. Admittedly, the same has. not received any approval from the Government. As such, the said proposal is neither a statutory rule, nor can it be said that it was made under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. (c) The clause (3) of the said circular issued in the year 1953 would clearly state that the proposal for amendment of Police Manual/Rules will be sent to the Government for approval in due course. However, there is no document available to indicate that the said proposal was sent to the Government and the Government granted approval. In other words, the memo issued in the year 1953 cannot have any statutory value or force in the absence of the Government approval as required under the provisions of the Police Manual.;