Arun Kumar Sinha, Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....of record from the very nature of the court itself. the said special power is not subject to the procedural law either of the criminal procedure code or the contempt of courts act. the high court can deal with the matter summarily and can adopt its own procedure. however, if the high court initiates the proceeding as a court of record, principle of natural justice must be applied and the contemner should be given sufficient opportunity to know the accusation and to defend himself. in the instant case, the contemner was served with the notice to show cause. he was well aware of the accusation. he also admitted his guilt. in view thereof, contention of the contemner lawyer that he was not heard on merit of the contempt application and the impugned judgment of punishing petitioner in contempt of court is violative of principles of natural justice, is not tenable. article 215: contempt proceedings review of conviction held, it is the solemn duty of the bench and bar to maintain and uphold the majesty, authority and dignity of the courts for the sustenance and progress of democracy in our country particularly at the juncture when there are number of instances of outside..........to the post of deputy superintendent of police on the basis of gradation list to be prepared from the cadre of which the petitioners belong.the facts in brief are set out as under:2. the petitioners were directly recruited as sub-inspector of police in the year 1975-76 and they were promoted to the post of inspector. however, in the gradation list dated 2.6.2.002 issued vide memo no. 3923 from serial no. 13 to 25 the persons appointed directly on the post of steno sub-inspector have been included who were promoted to the post of sub-inspector in the year 1982-83.3. the main contention raised by the counsel for the petitioners is that the gradation list dated 2.6.2002 with reference to persons included in serial no. 13 to 25 is on the face of it illegal and unsustainable since the steno sub-inspector formed a separate cadre altogether and even otherwise they were merged in the sub-inspector cadre only in the year 1982-83 that is much after the appointment of the petitioners directly on the post of sub-inspector in the year 1975-76.4. the counsel for the petitioners has referred to and relied upon the judgment and order passed by the division bench of this court in c.w.j.c......

Judgment:

ORDER

Ajit Kumar Sinha, J.

1. The present writ petition has been preferred for the following reliefs:

i) For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction for quashing the gradation list dated 2.6.2002 contained in Memo No. 3926 issued under the signature of Deputy Inspector General of Police (Personnel) Jharkhand Ranchi whereby and whereunder a gradation list has been prepared in which the person who are outside the cadre of the petitioners whose name figures from Sl. No. 13 to 25 have been included thus treating them senior to the petitioners,

ii) For a direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police on the basis of gradation list to be prepared from the cadre of which the petitioners belong.

The facts in brief are set out as under:

2. The petitioners were directly recruited as Sub-Inspector of Police in the year 1975-76 and they were promoted to the post of Inspector. However, in the gradation list dated 2.6.2.002 issued vide Memo No. 3923 from serial No. 13 to 25 the persons appointed directly on the post of Steno Sub-Inspector have been included who were promoted to the post of Sub-Inspector in the year 1982-83.

3. The main contention raised by the counsel for the petitioners is that the gradation list dated 2.6.2002 with reference to persons included in serial No. 13 to 25 is on the face of it illegal and unsustainable since the Steno Sub-Inspector formed a separate cadre altogether and even otherwise they were merged in the Sub-Inspector Cadre only in the year 1982-83 that is much after the appointment of the petitioners directly on the post of Sub-Inspector in the year 1975-76.

4. The counsel for the petitioners has referred to and relied upon the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 6371 of 1990 on an identical issue wherein at paragraph - 11 it was held as under:

11. Keeping in view the facts of the present case and the principles governing determination of seniority it has to be held that for the purpose of determining inter-se-seniority of the petitioners and respondents No. 1 to 19, the respective dates of entry/appointment of these persons in the cadre of Sub-Inspector of Police can be the only relevant basis and neither the date of first appointment of the petitioners in another cadre nor the date of confirmation of the respondents on their respective posts is of any consequence for the said purpose.

5. The Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 568 of 1994 was preferred against that order which was also dismissed vide order dated 14.2.1994.

6. The counsel for the respondent fairly admits that this issue is no more resintegra and even the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court vide its order reported in has decided the issue in question in favour of the petitioners.

7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstance of the case and in view of the settled law a person can claim seniority/promotion only from the respective date of entry/appointment in the cadre.

8. In the instant case there is no denial of the fact that in the cadre of Sub-Inspector of Police the petitioners were only appointed by way of direct recruitment in 1975-76 whereas the persons at serial No. 13 to 25 in the gradation list of 2002 were promoted or brought to the cadre of Sub-Inspector only in the year 1982-83 and thus they cannot claim seniority even before they were born in the cadre.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstance of the case and also in view of the admitted facts and the case law, this writ petition is allowed.