IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7160 of 2010 1. SHASHI BHUSHAN SINGH, S/O LATE BRIJ BALA SARAN SINGH, K-75, HANUMAN NAGAR, KANKARBAGH, P.S.- PATRAKAR NAGAR, DISTRICT- PATNA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, LABOUR RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT.OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER / CHAIRMAN DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEE OLD SECRETARIAT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 5. PRINICIPAL SECRETARY, PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT, GOVT.OF BIHAR,PATNA 6. SECRETARY, BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICES COMMISSION, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 7. SRI VYASJI, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY LABOUR RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 8. DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEE THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, GOVT. OF BIHAR,PATNA. 9. ARUN KUMAR DUTTA, S/O LATE RATAN RAM, R/O VILLAGE-MACHAKANA,P.S.- HUSAINGANJ, DISTRICT- SIWAN, PRESENTLY POSTED AS DEPUTY DIRECTOR / (TRAINING) LABOUR RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIATE,PATNA. 10. DY. SECRETARY, LABOUR RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT.OF BIHAR, PATNA. ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. M.S.Madhup, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ritesh Kumar, AC to AAG I For the B.P.S.C. : Mr. K.K.Jha, Advocate For Res. No. 9 : Mr. Surendra Kumar Singh with Ms.Sudha Singh, Advocates -------- 6. 16.11.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, for the State, for the Bihar Public Service Commission and for the private respondent no. 9. The petitioner held the post of Deputy Director in the Labour Employment and Training Department. He has retired on 31.7.2010 during the pendency of the proceedings. The grievances arises out of an order dated 15.4.2010 shifting the date of promotion of the private respondent as Principal Selection Grade to 10.1.1997 from 10.1.2000 fixed earlier and to the post of Deputy Director to 1.4.2001 from 10.1.2004 similarly. If the changes are permitted they affect the claim of the petitioner to be considered for the post of Joint Director. - 2 - The petitioner belongs to the general category and the private respondent belongs to the reserved category of scheduled caste. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is senior to the private respondent in the gradation list of Principal. He fulfils the conditions and eligibility for promotion as Joint Director from August 2005. The private respondent was punished with censure in a departmental proceeding for a charge of August 1997. He was therefore ineligible to be considered for promotion for the next three calendar years. The concept of financial year had no application to promotions. The ineligibility of the private respondent for promotion due to the punishment is effective from January 1997. The respondents had therefore rightly granted him promotion as Principal Selection Grade and Deputy Director from 10.1.2000 and 10.1.2004. The petitioner did not question this order of promotion before any court of law. The dates of his promotion have subsequently been shifted to 10.1.1997 and 1.4.2001 respectively on a mere representation by him on an incorrect interpretation of a notification dated 10.2.2001 that the punishment of censure was to be operative for three years next to the year for which the charge related. Strong reliance has been placed on this understanding of the respondents from the minutes of the Departmental Promotion Committee dated 25.11.2005. Supporting the submissions learned Counsel relied upon the notification dated 17.5.1982 of the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms to submit that it very clearly says that promotion in that year, for which the - 3 - punishment is imposed shall be operative for the next three years. The submission therefore was that the respondents themselves understood the issue “year” as a calendar year and acted in furtherance of the same. The interpretation now sought to be given by Annexure B to the counter affidavit that it shall mean financial year is an afterthought to benefit the private respondent. Counsel for the State and the private respondent strenuously urged that it was the policy decision of the State Government to treat the financial year as the relevant period to debar a person for promotion. A person aggrieved with his promotion may not necessarily rush to the Court. He would probably be told that he should have approached the authorities first. In any event of the matter the private respondent appears to have come to this Court earlier in CWJC No. 4998 of 2004 as also did the petitioner in CWJC No. 15552 of 2009. This Court in both the writ petitions directed consideration of their cases from due date. Upon consideration of the representation of the private respondent, the respondents opined that he belonged to the scheduled caste. The vacancy as per the roster occurred on 10.1.1997. The charge against the petitioner related to August 1997. If the word “year” has to be interpreted as a calendar year, there can be no two opinions that the petitioner is not entitled to be promoted from 10.1.1997. If it is interpreted to mean a financial year, no error can be found in the act of the official respondents in shifting the date of promotion. - 4 - No statutory provision has been cited before the Court with regard to the interpretation to be given to the word “year”, to hold that it would mean only a calendar year and not a financial year. The official respondents state in Annexure „B‟ to the counter affidavit that entries in the character roles are made and maintained as per the financial year and therefore the ineligibility for promotion of the private respondent operates from April 1997 onwards only. There are two interpretations available now. The petitioner contending it means a calendar year and the respondents contending that if means a financial year. If two interpretations are possible and the interpretation on which the act of the official respondents is founded cannot be said tobe arbitrary, illogical or devoid of reason there may not be sufficient justification for the Court to interfere. The system of calculation of a financial year for various aspects is well known method, accepted and acted upon in various aspects of life. If that interpretation be correct, the charge being from August 1997, the disability of the petitioner operates from April 1997. If, he has been promoted from 10.1.1997 no fault can be founded with it. The duration required of four years to make the private respondent eligible for consideration to be promoted as Deputy Director was consumed while his disablement pursuant to the censure continued to operate and in fact he fulfils the eligibility to be considered one year thereafter. This Court therefore does not find any infirmity in grant of promotion as Deputy Director from 1.4.2001. - 5 - The submission of the petitioner that the notification dated 10.2.2010 was issued malafides to favour the private respondent by inserting the words that the punishment in pursuance of censure would be effective from one year after the imposition of the punishment is not relevant to the issue in view of the fact that the Court has arrived at the finding that respondent no. 9 has been promoted on 10.1.1997 as Principal Selection Grade a date on which there was no disablement operating against consideration of his case for promotion. There is no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)