SINGHESHWAR PRASAD SINHA Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner herein, who has been working as Sub -Inspector of Police, has sought a direction to quash memo No. 1028/A dated 27.1.1982 of the Inspector General of Police as contained in Annexure '5', and to consider his case for promotion to the post of Inspector of Police or in the alternative treat him as a confirmed Sub -Inspector of Police with effect from 1.5.1973 and accordingly consider his case for promotion.

(2.) The undisputed facts are that the Petitioner was appointed as a literate constable in November, 1951, promoted to officiate as Assistant Sub -Inspector of Police with effect from 13.6.1963 and confirmed in the said capacity with effect from 1.7.1971. He was thereafter given promotion to Officiate as Sub Inspector of Police with effect from 1.5.1973, vide D.O. No. 987 dated 20.3.1973 of the Superintendent of Police (C), CID Patna as directed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police of the said department. He has been officiating in the said capacity since then, when on 18.3.1978 the Central Selection Board met for deciding the suitability of the Assistant Sub -Inspector for confirmation and in the list prepared by it the Petitioner was shown as fit for such promotion. According to the Petitioner, he was given an arbitrary date of confirmation in the rank of Sub -Inspector with effect from 1.3.1979. He represented against the said discrimination and claimed that his seniority and confirmation with effect from 1.5.1973 be restored. While his representation remained unattended, the memo inviting nomination and promotion as Inspector of Police was issued, in which it was stated that names of such Sub -Inspectors be included therein, who were either probationers or confirmed on or before 31.12.1976.

(3.) According to the Petitioner, in his case the Respondents have ignored Rule 668 of the Bihar Police Manual Rules which states that officers, whether appointed direct or promoted, shall in the first instance be appointed or promoted on probation and where the period of probation is not provided for in the rules, it shall be for the period of two years in the case of the Executive Officers and one year in the case of Ministerial Officers. It also states that the authorities authorised to make such appointments may at any time during such probationary period and without the formalities laid down remove or revert such an officer who has not fulfilled the conditions for such appointment or promotion. It empowers the competent authority to extend the period of probation. But in the case of the Petitioner his continuous appointment remained uninterrupted and no order was ever issued either reverting him or removing him from his appointment or extending the period of probation which by virtue of the statute itself could not exceed the period of two years unless extended by an order of the competent authority. Contending inter alia that the continuous officiation of the Petitioner itself has to be taken as the basis to reckon his seniority with effect from the date of the continuous officiation irrespective of the fact whether there was any order to confirm him as Sub -Inspector or not and irrespective of the fact whether there was any order appointing him on probation or extending his period of probation. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has informed the Court that during the pendency of the application the Petitioner has been selected and promoted to the rank of Inspector of Police but his promotion has been made subject to the result of this application.