JITENDRA PRASAD SRIVASTAVA Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has questioned the validity of the gradation list of Excise Inspectors prepared by the State Government and notified on 9.1.1986, in which respondent Nos. 6 to 20, who, according to the petitioner, are junior to him, have been shown above the petitioner. A prayer has also been made to quash the notifications dated 5.12.1985 and 3.4.1986 by which respondent Nos. 6 to 10 have been given officiating charge of the posts of Excise Superintendents ignoring the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner was appointed as a Sub -Inspector of Excise on 16.9.1965. The petitioner having passed the departmental examination was confirmed to the post of Sub -Inspector of Excise, by an order dated 3.6.1975. He was promoted to the post of Inspector of Excise, by an order dated 26.5.1980.

(2.) Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 were appointed as Inspector of Excise on 7.10.1977 and 26.6.1979 respectively by direct recruitment. Respondent Nos. 8 to 10 were appointed as Inspector of Excise by direct recruitment on 20th June, 1980. Respondent Nos. 11 to 16 were appointed as Inspector of Excise by direct recruitment on 20th June, 1983. Respondent Nos. 17 to 20 were promoted as Inspector of Excise in the year 1981. It is an admitted position that respondent Nos. 6 and 7 were appointed as Inspectors of Excise before the petitioner whereas respondent Nos. 8 to 20 have been appointed as Inspectors of Excise after the petitioner.

(3.) Justifying the gradation list which it under challenge it was pointed out on behalf of the respondents that as respondent Nos. 6 and 7 had been admittedly appointed as Inspector of Excise prior to the petitioner, there is no question of the petitioner being senior to them merely on the ground that they did not pass the departmental examinations within the period prescribed. It was pointed out that on that ground their services could have been terminated but, once they have been retained in service and have later passed the departmental examination, they will rank senior to the petitioner. The stand in respect of respondent Nos. 8 to 16 is that although they had been appointed after the petitioner was promoted to the post of Inspector of Excise but as the aforesaid respondents had been appointed against the posts which had been reserved for direct recruits and were lying vacant since 1977, 1978, after appointments their seniority has been fixed with effect from the different dates in the year 1977, 1978 when these posts which had been reserved for them became available applying the quota rule. In respect of respondent Nos. 17 to 20 it was pointed out that admittedly they were senior to the petitioner in the lower grade of Sub -Inspector of Excise but as departmental proceedings were pending against them the petitioner was promoted before them as Inspector of Excise but posts had been reserved for them. As such after promotion they shall rank again senior to the petitioner.