STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. ETC. versus KAMESHWAR PRASAD SINGH AND ANR. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [2000] 3 S.C.R. 764 · Decided: 27-04-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. ETC. 
v. 
KAMESHWAR PRASAD SINGH AND ANR. ETC. ETC. 
APRIL 27, 2000 
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND RP. SETIIl, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Seniority-Period of officiation-Reckoning of-Sub-Inspector of Po-
lice-Promoted to the post of Inspector of Police on officiating basis-Order 
clearly stipulated that employee cannot claim seniority till duly selected-
Claim for seniority and promotion-Allowed by High Court-Validity of-
Held, officiating post held purely on ad hoc basis and not as per rules cannot 
be considered for seniority-Thus, High Court erred in granting seniority and 
promotion-However, in the interest of justice promotions made not disturbed-
Bihar Police Manual Rules-Rules 660(C) and 649. 
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 14-Equality-Concept of-Senior-
ity-Claim-High Court by granting seniority committing illegality or irregu-
larity-Another employee claiming similar relief-Validity of-Held, equality 
is a positive concept and cannot be enforced in a negative manner-Benefits 
extended to a person in an illegal or irregular manner cannot be claimed by 
others on the ground of equality. 
Practice and Procedure : 
Parties-Non-joinder of parties-Effect of-Seniority-Claim for-Per-
sons likely to be affected by the relief claimed, not impleaded as parties-Held, 
the petition should be nonnally dismissed unless there existed specific reasons 
for such non-impleadment. 
Plea-New plea-Raising of-Claim for seniority-Grant of-LPAsfiled 
raising specific plea regarding facts and law-Dismissed by High Court only 
on the ground of limitation-Held, cannot be accepted that plea regarding 
detennination of seniority is raised for the first time before the Supreme Court. 
. Limitation Act, 1963 : 
Delay in filing appeal-Condonation of-Sufficiency of cause shown-
764 
)- ;: 
-
~ 
~ 
~4 
STATE v. K.P. SINGH 
765 
·~ 
Held, power to condone delay has been conferred on the courts to enable them 
A 
to do substantial justice which cannot be defeated by technicalities-In the 
instant case, dismissal of appeal likely to affect not only the parties but several 
other persons-Thus, delay condoned. 
Respondent 'B ', Sub-Inspector of Police was promoted as Inspector 
B 
of Police on officiating basis with a clear stipulation that he will not get 
seniority in the rank of Inspector till duly selected. One 'R', junior to 
respondent 'B' was promoted as Inspector in terms of Rule 660(C) of the 
Bihar Police Manual Rules and further promoted as Dy. S.P. Subsequently, 
respondent 'B' was promoted as Inspector after selection under Rule 649 
of the Rules. He filed a writ petition before the High Court claiming c 
seniority in the post of Inspector from the date of his officiating promo-
tions, which was allowed. Thereafter, respondent ~B' also filed a writ 
petition claiming promotion to the post of Dy. S.P. from the date 'R' was 
promoted to that post, which was also allowed. Respondent 'K', Sub-
Inspector of Police filed a writ petition claiming promotion to the post of 
D 
Inspector on the ground that his junior viz. respondent 'B' was promoted. 
The said writ petition was also allowed by High Court. Aggrieved, appel-
lants tiled Letters Patent Appeals along with application for condonation 
of delay. Division Bench of High Court dismissed the said LPAs only on 
the ground of limitation without deciding the other pleas raised. Hence the 
~ ~ 
present appeals. 
E 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. High Court was not justified in granting seniority and 
promotion to respondent 'B' on the basis of his officiating promotion in the 
post oflnspector of Police. (784-C-D] 
F 
~ 
1.2. Where the initial appointment is only ad hoc and not according 
to the rules and made as a stop gap arrangement, the officiation an such 
post cannot be taken into account for considering the seniority. In the 
instant case, respondent 'B' having been promoted on officiating basis 
G 
with a clear stipulation that he will not get seniority in the rank of Inspec-
tor till finally selected could not have preferred a claim regarding his 
>- 1-> 
seniority on the basis of promotion of 'R' though initially junior to him yet 
substantively promoted in accordance with Rule 660(C) in the year 1972 
whereas respondent 'B' was promoted after selection under Rule 649 only 
in the year 1978. Thus, High Court by granting promotion and seniority to 
H 
766 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2000) 3 S.C.R. 
A 
respondent 'B' totally ignor

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.