Simplified Explanation of the Judgment

The Patna High Court in this case addressed the grievance of a medical doctor employed in Bihar’s Health Department. The petitioner sought a seniority-cum-choice posting on the ground that he was entitled to promotion with effect from the date he became eligible. However, his claim was rejected by the Principal Secretary, Health Department, through an order dated 21.06.2019.

The background reveals that earlier, in CWJC No. 5150 of 2019, the Court had directed the authorities to allow the petitioner to file a representation for consideration of his claim. The petitioner did so, relying particularly on Notification No. 34(17) dated 17.01.2018, where several doctors had been granted retrospective promotions (from the date of their eligibility rather than their date of joining).

Petitioner’s Argument

• The petitioner was senior as per existing policy.
• His seniority was disturbed because several doctors were granted in situ promotions with effect from their date of joining, upsetting the merit order.
• Notification dated 17.01.2018 clearly shows that retrospective promotion had been granted earlier, hence parity required similar consideration of his case.
• The impugned order dated 21.06.2019 falsely stated that no doctor had ever been given retrospective promotion.

State’s Argument

• Transfers and postings are based on administrative exigencies, and courts should avoid interference.
• However, the State counsel admitted difficulty in defending the specific claim that no retrospective promotions were ever granted, since the notification cited by the petitioner existed.

Court’s Findings

The High Court held that:

1. Once the petitioner specifically relied on the 17.01.2018 Notification granting retrospective promotion, the Principal Secretary was obliged to consider it on merits.
2. The impugned order of 21.06.2019 failed to address this crucial precedent and instead made a blanket, incorrect statement.
3. Therefore, the order was unsustainable and had to be quashed.

Court’s Directions

• The impugned order dated 21.06.2019 was quashed.
• The petitioner was permitted to file a fresh representation with a copy of the 17.01.2018 Notification and any other supporting documents.
• The Principal Secretary, Health Department, was directed to decide the representation expeditiously, preferably within 8 weeks, in accordance with law.
• If retrospective promotion is granted, consequential benefits must also be extended.

Thus, while the Court did not directly grant promotion, it ensured that the petitioner’s claim would be properly examined in light of past precedents.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment

For government doctors:

• This judgment safeguards fairness in promotion matters. Doctors cannot be denied retrospective promotion if others have already been granted the same benefit.
• It ensures that seniority is determined uniformly, preventing arbitrary disruption caused by in situ promotions.

For administration:

• The case highlights that authorities must give reasoned consideration to representations, especially when precedents exist.
• Blanket denials without examining relevant notifications are legally unsustainable.

For legal clarity:

• Reinforces the principle of parity in service benefits: if one set of employees is given retrospective promotion, others in similar circumstances cannot be excluded arbitrarily.
• Also shows judicial restraint: the Court quashed the defective order but left the final decision to the competent authority, maintaining administrative balance.

Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision

• Was the Principal Secretary correct in denying retrospective promotion without considering Notification dated 17.01.2018?
  • No. Failure to consider the notification was a serious error.
• Can the High Court directly order promotion in such cases?
  • No. The Court quashed the flawed order and directed reconsideration, leaving the decision to the authority.
• What remedy was provided to the petitioner?
  • Fresh representation to be filed; authority must decide within 8 weeks, with retrospective benefits if found eligible.

Case Title

Ranjit Kumar Singh @ Ranjit Singh v. The State of Bihar & Ors.

Case Number

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 13619 of 2019

Citation(s)

2021(2) PLJR 109

Coram and Names of Judges

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Madhuresh Prasad (Oral Judgment dated 11-02-2021)

Names of Advocates and who they appeared for

• For the petitioner: Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, Advocate; Mr. Chandan Kumar, Advocate
• For the respondents: Mr. Pankaj Kumar, SC-12

Link to Judgment

MTUjMTM2MTkjMjAxOSMxI04=-tFlOLbPX8bk=

If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.