IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1704 of 2003 DEVENDRA PRASAD SINHA, S/o Late Munna Lal Singh, R/o Village- Chakpakauli, P.O.- Anda P.S.-Phulwari, District- Patna. At present Electrician, Director Works and Plant Office, Rajendra Agricultural University Bihar Veterinary College Campus, Patna-800014. …….. Petitioner Versus 1. The Rajendra Agricultural University, Bihar through its Registrar having its headquarters at Pusa, District- Samastipur. 2. The Vice- Chancellor, Rajendra Agricultural University, Bihar through its Registrar having its headquarters at Pusa, District- Samastipur. 3. The Director of Administration, Rajendra Agricultural University, Bihar through its Registrar having its headquarters at Pusa, District- Samastipur. 4. The Director of works and Plant, Rajendra Agricultural University, Bihar Veterinary College, Campus, Patna-14. ----------- 3. 26-07-2010 Heard Mr. Anand Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition reads as follows: “1. That this is an application for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to promote the petitioner to Senior Selection Grade post of Electrician in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300/- with effect from 7.9.1994.” With reference to the aforementioned prayer, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner was a senior most person in the cadre of Electrician but he was not given his due promotion and therefore, petitioner is entitled for such promotion with effect from 7.09.1994. Mr. Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner however, on being asked by this court as to which of the juniors to the petitioner 2 were given such promotion, he had frankly accepted that this was not the case of the petitioner. The facts in this regard has been explained by the respondents in their counter affidavit, wherein it has been stated as follows: “8. That the brief facts giving rise to the present writ application is that the petitioner was appointed as Electrician in the pay scale of Rs. 240-396 on 10-08-1979 in the University of answering respondents. Later on his pay was revised in the scale of Rs. 580- 860 w.e.f. 1.4.1981 in terms of recommendations of Vth Pay Revision Committee and he was given revised pay scale of Rs. 1200-1800 on 10-08-1986. At the time of appointment of the writ petitioner, there were only two sanctioned posts of Electrician in the University of answering respondents and thus question of allowing him junior selection grade in terms of recommendation of Vth Pay Revision Committee did not arise. However, he was given first time bound promotion after completion of 10 years of service w.e.f. 10.8.1989 in the pay scale of Rs. 1320-2040 vide office order no. 335 dated 11.7.1991. 9. That it is also stated that at the relevant time, some of the lineman of the University of answering respondents had filed writ application for the uniformity and consistency of their pay scale which was allowed and accordingly the post of linemen was abolished/renamed as Electrician w.e.f. 7.9.1994 vide office order as contained in memo no. 940 dated 13.8.1996 as contained in Annexure-4 of the writ application. Thereafter the total strength of electrician become 13 since the date of amalgamation of both the posts i.e. 7.9.1994. 10. That the claim of the writ petitioner for grant of senior selection grade w.e.f. 7.9.1994 is not tenable in the eye of law on the ground that the strength of post of Electrician become 13 since 7.9.1994 as mentioned above and the 3 promotion in senior selection grade was only admissible to the employees after expiry of three years of period since 7.9.1994 i.e. in the year 1997. However, in the year 1996 as per recommendation of Vth pay revision committee, the scheme of time bound promotion and promotions in junior selection grade and senior selection grade was abolished since 1.1.1996. Thus the writ petitioner is not entitled for promotion in senior selection grade.” The aforesaid stand taken by the respondents in their counter affidavit has also not been controverted by the counsel for the petitioner by filing any rejoinder affidavit. In that view of the matter, as there was no post available as per the answering respondents in question and that none of the juniors to the petitioner were given such promotion, the petitioner cannot in fact claim such promotion in isolation. The only difference between time bound promotion and selection grade promotion would be that time bound promotion has to be given with effect from the particular date whereas regular promotion can be made effective only from the admissible date when it is notified. That apart, when no one of the junior to the petitioner was given such regular promotion the grievance of the petitioner on this score seems to be wholly misconceived, specially when the university has also taken a specific plea as with regard to non- availability of promotional post of electrician on which the petitioner could be given such promotion in Senior Selection Grade. Since the said stand of the University has not been controverted by the petitioner by filing any rejoinder affidavit, it has to be held that 4 there was no error on the part of the respondents in not giving promotion to the petitioner. That being so, this writ petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. Sujit ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)