Patna High Court
Ram Niwas SinghversusThe State Of Bihar and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- RITESH KUMAR
Holding
The petition is dismissed because the petitioner failed to implead affected senior officers, and therefore the court cannot grant the relief sought.
Summary
The petitioner, a Sub‑Inspector recruited in 1976, filed a writ petition seeking promotion to Deputy Superintendent of Police on the ground that seniority under Rule 659(a) of the Bihar Police Manual had not been fixed and that his denial violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The State argued that his seniority as Sub‑Inspector only began in 1994 and that he had already received ad‑hoc promotions, citing relevant police rules and Supreme Court precedents on negative equality. The Court examined the need to re‑work the inter‑se seniority list, which would affect many officers not joined as parties. Relying on recent case law that a "fence‑sitter" cannot claim relief and that parties whose rights are affected must be impleaded, the Court held that the petition could not be granted. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed for non‑joinder of necessary parties.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to promotion to Dy.SP based on seniority under Rule 659(a) of the Bihar Police Manual.
- Whether the denial of promotion violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
- Whether the court can grant relief without joinder of other officers whose seniority and promotion rights would be affected.
- Whether the doctrine of negative equality precludes granting relief in this case.
- Whether the petition is barred by delay or laches.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- promotion
- seniority
- police service
- writ petition
- Articles 14
- Article 16
- non‑joinder
- fence‑sitter
- negative equality
- Bihar Police Manual
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.24123 of 2013
======================================================
Ram Niwas Singh S/O Late Raj Kumar Singh Resident Of Village-
Kandharpur, P.O and P.S- Sandesh, District- Bhojpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. The Director General- Cum- Inspector General Of Police, Bihar, Patna.
3. Additional Director General, Criminal Investigation Department, Bihar,
Patna
4. Deputy Inspector General Of Police, Personnel Office Of Director General
Of Police, Bihar, Patna
5. Superintendent Of Police, C, Criminal Investigation Department, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Prasad Choudhary, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Prem Ranjan Raj, A.C. to S.C.7
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 30-06-2026
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for
commanding the respondents to grant promotion to the
petitioner after fixing seniority between the direct recruit Sub-
Inspector of Patna of 1976 and the promotees Sub-Inspector of
Police who got promotion and training in the year 1976. Further
prayer has been made to grant all monetary and consequential
benefits.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
Patna High Court CWJC No.24123 of 2013 dt.30-06-2026
2/9
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that the petitioner, despite being senior to
many of the Sub-Inspectors of the 1976 batch has been denied
promotion, whereas the persons much junior or similar to the
petitioner have been granted promotion as Dy.S.P. He submits
that the respondents provided information to the petitioner under
Right to Information Act, wherein they have accepted that Rule
659(a) of the Bihar Police Manual has not been followed, while
granting promotion and thereby the petitioner has been denied
his promotion on the basis of seniority. He submits that the
respondents without fixing the inter se seniority in between the
direct recruit Sub-Inspectors of Patna of 1976 batch and the
promotees Sub-Inspector of Police, who were granted
promotion and training in the year 1976. In terms of Rule 659(a)
of the Bihar Police Manual, 50 % of the vacancies in the rank of
Sub-Inspector has to be filled by selection from the rank of
Assistant Sub-Inspectors, who have at least done a minimum of
five years of service and only selected officers who have shown
exceptional merit while serving as Assistant Sub-Inspectors will
be promoted. He further submits that the authorities, while
granting promotion to some of the direct recruit juniors, did not
take into consideration Rule 659(a) of the Bihar Police Manual
Patna High Court CWJC No.24123 of 2013 dt.30-06-2026
3/9
and this fact has been accepted in the reply, which has been
provided to the petitioner under Right to Information Act. The
learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
petitioner kept on filing representations before the authorities
concerned for grant of promotion to him by fixing inter se
seniority between the direct recruit Sub-Inspectors of Patna
district of 1976 batch and the promotee Sub-Inspectors of
Police, who got promotion and training in the year 1976. The
learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
gave representation in the year 1998 and kept on filing
representations till 2013, however no decision has been taken on
his representations filed before the respondent authorities. Left
with no option, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
He further submits that the cause of action for filing the present
writ petition has arisen in the year 2003, when the direct recruit
juniors were promoted as Dy.S.P. and the case of the petitioner
for grant of such promotion was not considered. He further
submits that the authorities never published the final seniority
list with regard to the direct recruit Sub-Inspectors of Patna
district of 1976 batch and the promotee Sub-Inspectors of
Police, who got promotion and training in the year 1976. He
submits that the case of the petitioner was not considered by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.24123 of 2013 dt.30-06-2026
4/9
respondent authorities in complete violation of the provisions
contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India,
since the direct recruit Sub-Inspectors, who were junior to the
petitioners, have been granted promotion, however the
petitioner, despite being senior to them, has been denied his
promotion on the post of Dy.S.P.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE-RESPONDENTS
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the State by referring to the counter affidavit submits
that the petitioner was appointed as a Constable on 13.03.1970
and later on was promoted to the rank of A.S.I. on ad hoc basis
on 20.08.1971. He submits that after some time he was reverted
to the post of Constable on 30.06.1976 and again was promoted
to the post of A.S.I. on ad hoc basis in the Special Branch on
14.12.1976. He was promoted to the post of A.S.I. after passing
P.T.C. examination on 01.04.1982, therefore prior to regular
promotion he was promoted to the post of A.S.I. on ad hoc basis
and was reverted to the post of Constable on many occasion.
The petitioner passed P.T.C. examination in 1977, as such he
became eligible for promotion to the rank of A.S.I. after passing
P.T.C. examination. The petitioner as well as immediate seniors
and juniors to the petitioner were promoted to the post of Sub-
Inspector of Police on 20.08.1994 and therefore his seniority in
Patna High Court CWJC No.24123 of 2013 dt.30-06-2026
5/9
the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police cannot be reckoned prior to
20.08.1994. He submits that the rule prescribed for promotion to
the rank of A.S.I. is mentioned in Rule 660 of the Bihar Police
Manual, whereby the hierarchy of the promotion has been
defined. Rule 659(a) provides for promotion to the post of
Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. The learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the State submits that the inter se
seniority of the petitioner has been fixed at serial no.2581 in the
gradation list issued vide Letter No.4932/P-2 dated 02.11.2004
and while the petitioner was posted in the State of Jharkhand, he
was allowed ad hoc promotion to the rank of Inspector of Police
vide Memo No.2181/P dated 18.09.2003 by the Police
Headquarters, Jharkhand at Ranchi on the basis of his inter se
seniority. Even none of the juniors to the petitioner were
promoted to the post of Inspector of Police till his retirement.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
State refers to an order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 10653/1998 (State
of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Kameshwar Prasad Singh & Anr.) and
its analogous cases, whereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India vide judgment dated 27.04.2000 has categorically held
that no court can grant relief to a citizen by applying the concept
Patna High Court CWJC No.24123 of 2013 dt.30-06-2026
6/9
of negative equality. Only because the Government had
committed a mistake by giving Brij Bihari Prasad Singh
seniority w.e.f. 27.07.1971 as Inspector and under the threat of
contempt, promotion w.e.f. 25.10.1975, the others who claimed
to be similarly situated cannot force the Government to commit
the same mistake and upon denial approach the High Court for
issuance of appropriate directions.
6. The learned counsel for the State further refers to
and relies upon a judgment of this Hon’ble Court in L.P.A.
No.1542 of 1995 and its analogous cases (Ashok Kumar
Khare Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.), whereby the Hon’ble
Division Bench vide its order dated 11.12.2009 denied the said
benefit to the persons who filed the appeal. The learned counsel
for the State submits that no person junior to the petitioner was
granted promotion even to the post of Inspector of Police, while
he was in service.
CONCLUSION/CONSIDERATION
7. Having heard the rival submissions and after
going through the records, it appears that the petitioner has filed
the present writ petition, whereby he has prayed for grant of
promotion, after fixing seniority between direct recruit Sub-
Inspectors of Police and the promotees Sub-Inspectors of Police
Patna High Court CWJC No.24123 of 2013 dt.30-06-2026
7/9
who got promotion and training in the year 1976. It appears that
if the relief sought for in the present writ petition is granted to
the petitioner, the inter se seniority of the petitioner and others
has to be reworked out and if in case any person who is senior to
the petitioner in the gradation list which was published in the
year 2004, comes below him in the seniority list, his rights has
to be protected in as much as that no orders can be passed
against any one without giving him an opportunity of being
heard. In the present case, the petitioner has not made any of the
persons, who are above him in seniority in the gradation list,
2004, as a party respondent. If the prayer sought for by the
petitioner will be granted, many a person, who have got
promotion on the post of Inspector of Police or the Dy.S.P., as
per their seniority in the merit list, their promotion would be
affected and in absence of them being made a party-respondent,
the relief, so sought for by the petitioner, cannot be granted. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a recent judgment in the
case of the State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. Vs. R. Sasipriya &
Anr., passed in Civil Appeal Nos.6883-6884 of 2026 and
another analogous case in paragraph nos.25, 25.2 and 26 has
held as follows:
“25. As far as the impleading
applicant, K. Saravanakumar is concerned, he was
Patna High Court CWJC No.24123 of 2013 dt.30-06-2026
8/9
not party to any of the proceedings before the High
Court, nor did he choose to intervene or seek
impleadment in the lis between the appellant and
Respondent No. 1. It is only before this Court that he
sought impleadment. In paragraphs 31 to 33 of his
affidavit, he himself states that disciplinary
proceedings are pending against him, thereby
showing that he is, in any event, not presently
entitled to promotion.
25.2. This Court finds him to be a
fence-sitter. It is settled law that fence-sitters cannot
be permitted to raise a dispute relating to seniority
and consequential promotion or challenge the
validity of an order after the matter has concluded.
No party can claim relief as a matter of right, and
one of the well-recognised grounds for refusing
relief is that the person approaching the Court is
guilty of delay and laches. A court exercising public
law jurisdiction does not encourage the agitation of
stale claims, particularly in matters of seniority and
promotion, where the rights of third parties have
crystallised in the interregnum [See Shiba Shankar
Mohapatra and others v. State of Orissa and
others, (2010) 12 SCC 471]. Therefore, no relief can
be granted to the impleading applicant.
26. As far as the impleading
applicant, S. Velumayil is concerned, in his
application, he himself admitted that in the revised
seniority list, he is junior to the appellant and
Respondent No. 1, and senior to K. Saravanakumar.
Moreover, he raised objections to the consideration
of the claim of the impleading applicant K.
Saravanakumar. Since this Court has rejected the
claim of K. Saravanakumar on the ground that he is
a fence-sitter, the present impleading applicant is
Patna High Court CWJC No.24123 of 2013 dt.30-06-2026
9/9
also not entitled to any relief in these appeals.”
8. Considering the legal position as well as the fact
that the petitioner has not impleaded any of the persons of the
gradation list/seniority list as party respondent in the present
writ petition, the writ petition is fit to be dismissed on account
of non-joinder of parties. In view of the above, this Court do not
find any merit in the present writ petition and the same is
accordingly dismissed.
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(Ritesh Kumar, J.)
Sanjay/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 03.07.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.