The Court dismissed an application seeking promotion to Inspector against theDirector General of Police, as the petitioner failed to demonstrate that his juniors passed the P.T.C. examination after him to prove hostile discrimination.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.2678 of 2010
1. RATAN LAL URAON S/O LATE SHANKAR URAON R/O SAKIM KICH GAON,
P.S.- NARPAT GANJ, DISTT.- ARARIA
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE BIHAR,
PATNA
2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE BIHAR, PATNA
3. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL ( PERSONNEL ) BIHAR, PATNA
4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE AURANGABAD, BIHAR
-----------
2/ 24/08/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
The petitioner seeks promotion to the post of Inspector from the date that his juniors have been promoted in 1994 and 1996.
He came to this Court earlier in C.W.J.C. No.6890/01 which was disposed with directions to consider his representation. In pursuance thereof the impugned order dated 21.8.2009 has been passed. It states that he has been granted promotion to the post of A.S.I. with effect from 20.2.1988 after he cleared the P.T.C. examination.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to demonstrate that his juniors had not passed the P.T.C. examination or that they had passed it after him so as
to urge hostile discrimination.
This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order.
The application is dismissed.
KC
( Navin Sinha, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether high interference the impugned order denying promotion rights to juniors.
Ratan Lal Uraon
The State of Bihar Through Director General of Police Bihar, Patna
Navin Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court