Patna High Court
Deena Bandhu Mishra vs The State Of Bihar on 30 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6539 of 2020
======================================================
1. Deena Bandhu Mishra Son of Late Ram Mangal Mishra, Resident of
Mohalla-Andarkila near Bharat Bharti High School, Hajipur, District-
Vaishali.
2. Raj Muni Rai, Son of Late Nanhu Rai, Resident of Village-Pananpur, P.S.-
Karaghar, District-Rohtas.
3. Arjun Ram, Son of Slate Jagatu Ram, Resident of Village-Pian, P.S.-
Sonhana, District-Kaimur.
4. Jagannath Sharma, Son of Late Ganga Sharma, Resident of Mohalla-
Shivpuri, P.S.-Shashtri Nagar, District-Patna.
5. Suresh Prasad Sinha, Son of Late Gaya Prasad Singh, Resident of Mohalla
near Civil Court Jahanabad, P.S. and District-Jahanabad.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Commissioner cum Secretary, Department of Home, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Commandant General, Bihar Home Guards, Chhajubagh Patna.
4. The Deputy Commandant General, Bihar Home Guards, Chhajubagh Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binodanand Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Md. Nadim Seraj (Gp5)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 30-11-2021
Heard the learned counsels for the parties.
2. In the instant petition, petitioners have prayed for
following reliefs:
"(i) For issuance of an order direction
or writ including the writ in the nature of
certiorari, quashing the recommendation of the
promotion committee dated 20.05.2014, for
promotion to the post of District Commandant
Home Guards, from the cadre of Inspectors
Home Guards Bihar.
Patna High Court CWJC No.6539 of 2020 dt.30-11-2021
(ii) For issuance of an order,
direction or writ including the writ in the nature
of mandamus commanding the respondents not
to give effect to the recommendation dated
20.05.2014.
(iii) For issuance of an order,
direction, or writ including the writ in the
nature mandamus commanding the respondents
to consider the case of the petitioners for the
post of District Commandant Home Guard
under various Categories.
(iv) For issuance of an appropriate
declaration holding that petitioners entitled for
promotion to the post of District Commandant
Home Guard under various categories.
(v) For issuance of an appropriate
declaration holding that since the vacancy of
the promoted post arose prior to coming into
force the 2005 rules therefore same will not
apply in case of the petitioners.
(vi) For any other relief(s) to which
the Petitioner may be found entitled in the facts
and circumstances of the present case."
3. For the purpose of promotion to the post of District
Commandant Home Guards, petitioners have a cause of action in
the months of September, 2005, the date on which relevant rules of
recruitment to the post of District Commandant Home Guard
amended incorporating eligibility qualification like pass in degree.
The petitioners' grievance has been rejected in the year 2007
whereas the present petition is presented in the year 2020.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
in the year 2006 one of their immediate senior name has been
considered for the purpose of promotion to the post of District
Commandant Home Guards, Bihar. Therefore, there is delay in
Patna High Court CWJC No.6539 of 2020 dt.30-11-2021
presenting this petition. The petitioners had cause of action in
the month of September, 2005, the date on which rule was
amended. If the petitioners' contention is to be appreciated that
they are entitled to be promoted to the post of District
Commandant Home Guard to a vacancy which accrued prior to
September, 2005, in that event, they had a cause of action in the
year 2005. That apart, their grievances have been rejected in the
year 2007, they have not approached this Court in questioning
the validity of rejection of their claim in the year 2007.
Thereafter, one of their immediate senior stated to have been
promoted in the year 2016 whereas petitioners have presented
this petition in the year 2020. The Apex Court in case of P.S.
Sadasivaswamy Appellant V. State of T.N. reported in AIR
1974 SC 2271 held that a person who seeks promotion and
appointment must approach the appropriate forum for redressal
of his grievance within a reasonable period of time of six
months. The petitioners have slept over their right in respect of
seeking promotion to the post of District Commandant Home
Guard in the year 2005. Further when their claim was rejected in
the year 2007, they should have approached this Court within a
reasonable period of time. On the other hand, they slept over
from 2007 to 2016. That apart, one of their immediate senior is
Patna High Court CWJC No.6539 of 2020 dt.30-11-2021
stated to have been promoted in the year 2016. Still there is
delay of four years in approaching this Court.
5. In the light of these facts and circumstances, the
petitioners have not made out a case on the ground of delay and
laches and in the light of principle laid down in Apex Court's
decision (Supra).
6. Accordingly, the instant petition stands disposed of.
7. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted that the official respondent could have consider the
litigation policy that if a person is promoted, the others are entitled
and in the light of policy decision, the petitioners are entitled to
relief.
8. The State policy does not over ride the Apex Court's
decision (supra). Accordingly, the aforesaid contention is rejected.
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
rakhi/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 07.12.2021
Transmission Date
