Murari Bhagat vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

Heard learned senior counsel for the appellant, learned A.A.G. for the State as also learned counsels for the respondents 5 to 8.

The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned Judgement and Order dated 11.07.2018 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 822 of 2018.

L.P.A. No. 566 of 2018

In the said writ application the appellant had challenged the gradation list dated 02.02.2018 prepared by the Road Construction Department of the State of Jharkhand, wherein the appellant was put at serial No. 62. The appellant was aggrieved with his position shown in the gradation list.

By order dated 26.02.2018 passed in the writ application, the operation of the gradation list was stayed by the Writ Court, against which Interlocutory Application No. 4237 of 2018 was filed by the private respondents, which was also disposed of by the impugned order dated 11.07.2018 itself. This order shows that with the consent of the parties the stay order dated 26.02.2018 was vacated by the Hon'ble Single Judge.

The writ application was also disposed of by the Hon'ble Single Judge, taking into consideration the fact that though the appellant had been put at serial No. 62 in the seniority list, but he had already been promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer in the year 2014 itself. The Hon'ble Single Judge also took note of the fact that even though the appellant had been shown at serial No. 62 of the gradation list, but for all practical purposes of future promotion he was at serial No. 1 in his reserved category and accordingly, whenever any consideration for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer was to be made, naturally the appellant was the first person to be considered for the said post. The writ application was thus, disposed of by the Hon'ble Single Judge, without deciding the legality or otherwise of the seniority list. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant, still challenging his position at serial No. 62 in the seniority list dated 02.02.2018.

In course of arguments learned senior counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has not only been promoted to the post of Chief Engineer, rather he has been promoted even to the highest post of Engineer-in-Chief in the Department on 08.07.2020. However, learned senior counsel has insisted to challenge the seniority list, placing reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in H.S. Vankani & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., reported in (2010) 4 SCC 301, laying down the law as follows:-

L.P.A. No. 566 of 2018 "38. Seniority is a civil right which has an important and vital role to play in one's service career. Future promotion of a government servant depends either on strict seniority or on the basis of seniority-cum-merit or merit-cum-seniority, etc. Seniority once settled is decisive in the upward march in one's chosen work or calling and gives certainty and assurance and boosts the morale to do quality work. It instils confidence, spreads harmony and commands respect among colleagues which is a paramount factor for good and sound administration. If the settled seniority at the instance of one's junior in service is unsettled, it may generate bitterness, resentment, hostility among the government servants and the enthusiasm to do quality work might be lost. --------------------."

Placing reliance on this decision, learned senior counsel insisted to decide this appeal on merits, claiming that the seniority of the appellant was wrongly shown at Sr. 62 in the impugned seniority list, and the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that thereby the very civil right of the appellant had been violated to his prejudice.

Learned A.A,G., as also learned counsels for the private respondents have opposed the prayer, submitting that nothing remains to be decided in this Letters Patent Appeal, as the appellant has already been promoted to the post of Engineer-in-Chief.

Having heard learned counsels for the parties, and upon going through the record, we find that though the appellant had succeeded in getting the stay order from the Writ Court in his favour, but he had no objection in vacating the stay order at the time of final disposal of the writ application, as the order clearly shows that it was with the consent of the parties that the stay order dated 26.02.2018 was vacated. Even otherwise, admittedly the appellant has already been promoted to the highest post of Engineer-in-Chief on 08.07.2020, and there is no further scope of any promotion to the appellant, as presently there is no post higher to that in the Department.

A plain reading of the decision cited by learned senior counsel for the appellant in H.S. Vankani's case (supra), clearly shows that the Hon'ble Apex Court has recognized the seniority to be a civil right of a Government servant, as it plays a vital role in the service career and affects his / her future promotion, having a decisive role in the L.P.A. No. 566 of 2018 upward march in the service carrier. However, in the case in hand the appellant has no further scope of promotion left in his service carrier as of now, as he is holding the highest post in the hierarchy, i.e., the post of Engineer-in-Chief in the Department, and presently there is no post higher to that on which he may have the scope of any future promotion. In that view of the matter the position of the appellant in the seniority list dated 02.02.2018 at serial No. 62 is not going to affect any civil right of the appellant in any manner whatsoever, as the position of the appellant is presently of the senior most person in the Department holding the highest post in hierarchy.

In that view of the matter, the grievance of the appellant is only academic and no useful purpose is going to be served by adjudicating in this appeal the questions whether the preparation of the seniority list was correctly done or not, or whether the position of the appellant was righty fixed in the seniority list or not.

For the forgoing reasons, we do not find any illegality / irregularity in the impugned Judgement and Order dated 11.07.2018 passed by the Writ Court in W.P. (S) No. 822 of 2018, disposing of the writ application without entering into the question of legality or otherwise of the seniority list under challenge, worth any interference in the exercise of the letters Patent Appellate jurisdiction.

There is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly, dismissed. Consequently, all the pending Interlocutory Applications also stand disposed of.