IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16426 of 2001 MD.SHAMIM ALAM, Son of Abdus Salam, Resident of Nagmatiya Colony South, P.S. Civil Line, Gaya, at present Stenographer of Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Gaya ... .........Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Registrar (Administration), Patna High Court, Patna 3. District and Sessions Judge, Gaya.....Respondents. - ---------- 5 7-11-2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner has claimed to be a Stenographer in the Judgeship of Gaya. Initially there was a confusion in the light of averments made in the counter-affidavit as to whether he was in the cadre of clerk or stenographer. The original service records and other connected records of the petitioner disclose that in 1969 he was appointed in the cadre of clerk in Gaya Judgeship but subsequently in the year 1983 there was division of that cadre and he was included in the cadre of Stenographer. Hence, the claim of the petitioner that he is stenographer appears to be correct. Petitioner is aggrieved by action of the respondents in not granting him promotion to Senior Selection Grade by way of Second Time Bound Promotion. On behalf of petitioner it has been submitted that the relevant rules of - 2 - 1961 of Bihar Civil Courts Staff ( Class-III and Class-IV) Rules 1992 ( Hereinafter referred to as ` the Rules’) provide for passing a test of stenography only for promotion to the Junior Selection Grade and to Super Time Scales but not for promotion to senior selection grade. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3, the Registrar, High Court and the District and Sessions Judge, Gaya submits that petitioner took the required test of stenography along with others for promotion to senior selection grade on 22-9-1996 in views of clarification issued by this court dated 27-7-1996 contained in Annexure-B whereby this court clarified that under Rule 61 the test of stenography shall also be applicable for promotion to Senior Selection Grade. It was further submitted that there is a residuary clause in paragraph 72 of the rules which provides that nothing in these rules shall be deemed to affect power of the High Court to make such rules from time to time as it may deem in all matters incidental or ancillary to these rules not specifically provided for hearing or in regard to matters as have not been sufficiently provided for. On behalf of petitioner it has been replied that the - 3 - promotion of the petitioner became due, for second time bound promotion in the year 1994 itself after completing 25 years of service and hence the clarification issued in 1996, being administrative in nature, should not be held applicable to the claim of the petitioner for promotion. The clarification by the High Court is merely in respect of a rule already existing and it is not administrative in nature because it is in terms of statutory rule which is provided by Rule 72 noticed above . Further, it is found that petitioner did not raise any objection to holding of the test in stenography for the promotion in question.. He participated in the test and after being unsuccessful he cannot be permitted to turn around and challenge the requirement of such a test which has been applied equally to all concerned. In the facts of the case, this court finds no merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. ( Shiva Kirti Singh,J)