Laxman Tamang vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 3137 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Laxman Tamang vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 March, 2025

Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    Civil Review No. 111 of 2024
                         ------

1. Laxman Tamang, S/o Late Shyam Bhadur Tamang, R/o Quarter No. 9, JAP-1, Camp, Nepal House, Block No.10, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand

2. Krishna Bahadur Sonar, S/o Bhote Kami, R/o U-S Tower-1, Quarter No. 702, JAP-1 Campus, Doranda, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.

3. Neeraj Kumar Tamang, S/o Late Mitralal Tamang, R/o House No. BID8597A, Sidharth Nagar Near JAP-1, Hospital, Doranda, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.

4. Subhash Kumar Shresth, S/o Prem Kumar Newar, R/o Quarter No. 21/56, Namkum Road, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.

5. Kishan Rai, S/o Man Bhadur Rai, R/o JAP-1, Dhobi Line, Doranda, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.

6. Shankar Kumar Bahadur, S/o Bhagat Bahadur Chhetri, R/o JAP-1, Doranda, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.

.... .... .... Petitioners Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. The Director General of Police, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi having its office at Police Headquarters, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.

3. The Inspector General of Police, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi having its office at Police Headquarters, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.

4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Personnel), Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi having its office at Police Headquarters, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.

5. The Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand Armed Police, Rajarani Kothi, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.

6. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand Armed Police, Rajarani Kothi, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.

7. The Commandant, Jharkhand Armed Police-I, having its office at Ranchi, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.

8. Krishna Bahadur Pariyar, S/o Late Hari Bahadur Priyar, R/o Block-3, Quarter No. 2, Nepal House, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.

9. Rajesh Kumar Rana, S/o Shree Sher Bahadur Rana, R/o D/8, Munda Quarters, Nepal House, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.

10. Yam Bahadur Manjhi, S/o Nirman Manjhi, R/o Block-11, Quarter No. K/4, Nepal House, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi,

Jharkhand.

11.Sunil Bahadur, S/o Hasta Bahadur, R/o Antu Chowk, Dutta R/o village Road, Morabadi, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Lalpur, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.

.... .... .... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

For the Petitioners : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate For the State : Mr. Nehru Mahto, A.C. to G.P.IV Mr. Niraj Kumar Mishra, A.C. to G.P.IV For the Res. Nos.8-11 : Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Dubey, Advocate

------

Order No.12 / Dated : 06.03.2025 This Civil Review Application has been preferred to review the order passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No.3331 of 2023 on 20.12.2023 by which the writ petition preferred by respondent nos. 8 to 11 was allowed by this Court and the letter vide memo no.348 dated 26.06.2023 was quashed.

2. The writ petition was allowed mainly on the ground that respondent nos. 8 to 10 (writ petitioners) were granted out of turn promotion to the post of Hawaldar vide order dated 18.05.2006 vide memo no. 577 and further petitioner no. 4 (respondent no. 11) was granted similar promotion to the post of Hawaldar vide memo no. 333 dated 14.03.2012 and further promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector vide memo no. 4111 dated 07.08.2015 was granted. After the grant of promotion, they were accordingly placed in the seniority list dated 23.11.2020. The seniority was however interfered by the impugned memo no. 348 dated 26.06.2023 which was quashed by this Court.

3. The main contention of the review petitioners is that they were senior to the writ petitioners (respondent nos.8, 9, 10 and 11) as per the seniority list of Jharkhand Armed Police-I published on 23.11.2020. The review petitioners were at serial nos.39, 51, 54, 57, 100 and 111 whereas the respondents were at serial nos.228, 318 320.

4. It is argued that review petitioners were not impleaded in the writ petition in which the seniority on 28.10.2023, has been interfered by

the impugned order, which is against the principle of natural justice. Reliance is placed on (2016) 2 SCC 779.

5. It is further submitted that because of non-implement, judgments of this Court, could not be brought to the notice of this Court which could have a direct bearing on the merit of writ petition. Specific reference is made to L.P.A. No.392 of 2019 wherein it has been held that those who are fulfilling criteria as laid down in Rule 660(C) of the Police Manual, having not received citation of any police/gallantry award, they were not entitled to out of turn promotion.

6. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the opposite parties/original writ petitioners that the petitioners were granted out of turn promotion vide order no. 219/A/90 in 2006 and were accordingly placed senior to these review petitioners in the seniority list dated 23.11.2020. At no point of time, the out of turn promotion of 2006 or the consequent seniority list of 23.11.2020 was ever challenged by the review petitioners. Despite this, the said seniority list was interfered with the proposal to send for training for further promotion vide memo no. 348 dated 26.06.2023. This memo was based on a letter of the department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand letter no. 3463 dated 03.06.2022. In this letter seniority as per the basic cadre of constable was considered and not those who were granted out of turn promotion.

7. It is contended that, from the subject of the letter dated 03.06.2022 it will be evident that it was with regard to the promotion to be granted to the members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, wherein it was stated that they will be given promotion as per their seniority-cum-merit list on the basis of their seniority in the basic cadre. This letter was misinterpreted and settled seniority of 23.11.2020 was interfered while sending for training for higher promotion which was quashed by this Court.

8. In this view of matter since the review petitioners were not senior to the writ petitioners and therefore, they were not impleaded in the writ petition. Consequently, any seniority list has not been

interfered with, by the order under challenge.

9. There cannot be no two views on the proposition of law, that without affording any opportunity of hearing, no adverse order can be passed affecting a party. Matter for consideration is if the review petitioners have been adversely affected by the order sought to be reviewed.

10. It is not in dispute that the original writ petitioners were granted out of turn promotion in 2006 and further promotion in 2012, which were never challenged. Consequent seniority list as published on 23.11.2020 also remained un-challenged. Admittedly the present review petitioners were much below in seniority to the writ petitioners. Memo no.348 dated 26.06.2023 did not come up with a fresh seniority list, but it only proposed to send for training for consideration for promotion, bypassing the existing seniority list. This Memo was based on a letter of the department of personnel, which also did not publish any new gradation list, but dealt with principles of promotion of those members of SC and ST candidates higher in seniority to those in the general category. Thus, it cannot be said that by the order under review, any settled seniority list in favour of the review petitioners have been unsettled without hearing them. Impugned memo was quashed as the proposal for training and consequent promotion bypassed the existing seniority list.

11. In this view of matter the review petition on the ground that they had not been heard while passing the order is not sustainable.

Civil Review accordingly stands dismissed.

Pending I.A., if any stands disposed of.

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Pawan/