Satyadeo Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand & Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 676 Jhar

                                     1




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                        W. P. (S) No. 77 of 2004

            Satyadeo Singh                            ...      ...       Petitioner
                                  Versus
            The State of Jharkhand & Others ...   ... Respondents
                                  ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

Through Video Conferencing 23/24.02.2022

1. Heard Ms. M.M. Pal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner along with Mr. Aparajita Sinha, Advocate.

2. Heard Mr. Nitu Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India.

3. Heard Mr. Ankit Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Jharkhand.

4. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: -

"A) The Respondents be directed to consider the case of this petitioner for promotion to the I.A.S. Cadre retrospectively w.e.f. 1998 i.e., the date of his Selection and to give all consequential benefits thereon.

B) The Respondents be directed to issue integrity Certificate with retrospective effect and to give all consequential thereon.

C) The Respondents be directed not discriminate the petitioner arbitrarily and to give him the benefits of his selection to the post of I.A.S. Cadre as has been given to the same and similarly situated persons. D) Any other relief or reliefs to which the petitioner is entitled to be granted to the petitioner."

Arguments of the petitioner

5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had earlier moved before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 12587/2001 seeking a direction upon the respondent-State to issue Integrity Certificate to the petitioner. She submits that the said writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 28.11.2001, against which, the petitioner filed L.P.A. No. 75/2002, which was allowed vide order dated 28.02.2003 as contained in Annexure-1 to the present writ

petition. She submits that in LPA NO. 75 of 2002 the court disagreed with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that issuance of Integrity Certificate is an administrative decision and the same has to be taken on certain relevant consideration and it was held that the authority cannot refuse to grant integrity certificate on whimsical or arbitrary grounds and the L.P.A. Court further observed that in spite of representation filed by the petitioner, the authority had not considered the matter regarding grant of Integrity Certificate to him and the appeal was disposed of with a direction upon the State Government to decide the question of grant of Integrity Certificate to the petitioner within a period of six weeks.

6. The learned senior counsel further submits that thereafter the respondent-State passed another order dated 24.07.2003 rejecting the Integrity Certificate to the petitioner on the ground that there has been some disciplinary proceeding and imposition of some minor punishment against the petitioner in the past. The said order of rejection dated 24.07.2003 was challenged in W.P.(S) No. 4484/2003, which was decided vide judgment dated 25.11.2003 and this Court considered the fact that the punishment, that too a minor punishment related to the year 1989-90, followed by promotion of the petitioner has lost its relevance with the passage of time and consequently this court had set-aside the order dated 24.07.2003 refusing to grant the Integrity Certificate to the petitioner and directed the State of Bihar to reconsider the case of the petitioner in the matter of grant of integrity certificate as expeditiously as possible within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

7. The learned senior counsel submits that thereafter, the petitioner filed the petition for initiating contempt proceedings on account of non-compliance of order passed in W.P.(S) No. 4484/2003 and ultimately, the integrity certificate was issued by the State of Bihar only on 28.12.2003 and the petitioner retired on 31.12.2003.

8. A supplementary-affidavit has also been filed by the petitioner annexing a letter dated 30.12.2003, wherein it has been mentioned that the integrity certificate issued by Government of Bihar has been received in the Office of the U.P.S.C. (Union Public Service Commission) on 30.12.2003 and it was mentioned that the petitioner was to retire on 31.12.2003. The learned senior counsel submits that thereafter the petitioner ultimately retired and the present writ petition has been filed on 08.01.2004 seeking the aforesaid reliefs from this Court. It is not dispute that the present writ petition has never been admitted for final hearing by this Court.

9. Upon a query by this Court, as to whether the present writ petition itself is maintainable or not or whether the Central Administrative Tribunal would have the Jurisdiction to entertain the relief as prayed for by the petitioner by virtue of Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The learned senior counsel has fairly submitted that the Central Administrative Tribunal would certainly have the jurisdiction to entertain a petition of this nature, but considering the fact that numerous orders were passed in the case of the petitioner by this Court and the petitioner has suffered on account of latches on the part of the State and also the fact that certain P.I.L. was also filed before this Court in order to ensure filling up the backlog vacancies in I.A.S., the present writ petition has been filed. She also submits that no objection regarding maintainability of the present writ petition was ever raised from the side of the respondents.

10. In response to another query raised by this Court as to whether the direction to grant promotion to I.A.S. can be issued by this Court after the retirement of the petitioner and the present writ petition itself has been filed after his retirement, the learned senior counsel has submitted that a rejoinder has been filed in the present case which is dated 06.05.2009 and in the said rejoinder, a case of one Kamal Prasad Singh has been mentioned who had raised a grievance before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna , for his non-inclusion in the select list of 1996 in O.A. No. 83/1998 and in the said case, vide a

detailed judgment dated 02.11.1999, the O.A. was allowed with a specific direction that the meeting of the Committee shall be convened as soon as possible so as to include the name of Kamal Prasad Singh and the order of promotion was also directed to be issued as soon as possible preferably during that month before his retirement. She submits that on account of non-compliance of the order passed by CAT, Patna a contempt application was also filed and ultimately, said Kamal Prasad Singh was appointed to I.P.S. Cadre vide order dated 26.03.2002. Although the order passed by the learned CAT has not been brought on record, but the notification by which the said Kamal Prasad Singh was appointed to I.P.S. has been annexed as Annexure- 14 to the rejoinder. The learned senior counsel has also referred to the case of another person, namely, Anirudha Prasad Srivastava, who filed a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 2318/2004 as contained in Annexure-12 to the rejoinder, which was decided on 15.12.2004 and she submits that in the said writ petition, considering the stand taken by the respondents, UPSC was directed to take a decision on the basis of Integrity Certificate dated 30.12.2002 in accordance with law. She submits that in the said writ petition, a prayer was made seeking a direction upon the UPSC and the Government of India to take a final decision and notify it in pursuance of integrity certificate sent by the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar to the Secretary, New Delhi in respect of promotion to I.A.S. The learned counsel submits that ultimately the said Annirudha Prasad Srivastava was granted promotion.

11. The learned counsel has also referred to Annexure-15 dated 12.03.2004, wherein the year of allotment with respect to various persons from State of Jharkhand for the purposes of fixing of seniority was also decided in connection with 3 years select list i.e., 1998, 1999 and 2000. The learned senior counsel submits that there is no legal bar in law from appointing the petitioner as I.A.S. with a retrospective date even after his retirement. She also submits that merely because petitioner has retired, the same does not disentitle him for the relief as

sought for in the present case, as the petitioner cannot be made to suffer on account of latches on the part of the respondent-State.

Arguments of the Union of India

12. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent- Union of India, on the other hand, has submitted that the present writ petition itself is not maintainable as the relief as prayed for by the petitioner is a matter of jurisdiction of Central Administrative Tribunal. She has further submitted that so far as Union of India is concerned, unless there is a selection process conducted by the UPSC, there is no question of any recommendation to the Union of India and there being no recommendation to Union of India, no relief can be granted to the petitioner straightaway. The petitioner cannot be granted relief merely because an Integrity Certificate has been issued to the petitioner unless the petitioner during his service tenure had gone through the selection process conducted by the UPSC. She submits that the dispute in connection with the issuance of integrity certificate is between the petitioner and State Government Jharkhand or State of Bihar, but Union of India has got nothing to say in that regard, but the relief as prayed for by the petitioner may not be granted by this Court.

13. Learned counsel for the Union of India has further submitted that only the integrity certificate was sent but the name of the petitioner was never recommended which is a necessary exercise to be undertaken by the State before consideration of any person to be appointed in IAS Cadre. The learned counsel has also submitted that by the time the eligibility certificate was issued, the select list had seized to be in operation.

Arguments of the State of Jharkhand

14. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Jharkhand, on the other hand, has also submitted that Integrity Certificate was duly issued by the State of Bihar and was forwarded to UPSC and the earlier order passed by this Court was duly complied with. The

learned counsel submits that so far as State of Jharkhand is concerned, no inaction has been alleged as the direction for issuance of Integrity Certificate was issued by the State of Bihar and it was to be issued by the State of Bihar only. The learned counsel has also submitted that so far as allocation of I.A.S. Cadre is concerned, the petitioner cannot be granted such relief post retirement and without going through the selection process of IAS through UPSC. The learned counsel supports the submission of the Union of India.

15. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner, in response, submits that the petitioner has retired from the post of Director in the Primary Education Department and the age of retirement in the Primary Education Department was only 58 years and had he been allocated I.A.S. Cadre, then under such circumstances, the age of retirement would be 60 years and therefore, the petitioner was entitled to the relief as prayed for in the writ petition even on the date when the writ petition was filed. The learned counsel has also submitted that for the latches of the respondents, the petitioner shall not suffer and she refers to a decision reported on (2007) 11 SCC 447.

16. Arguments concluded.

17. Post this case on 28.03.2022 for judgment.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Mukul