IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.77 of 2009 1. GAJENDRA PRASAD VISHWAKARMA S/O LATE GAUTAM VISHWAKARM, R/O BIBIGANJ, P.S-DANAPUR CANTT., DISTRICT- PATNA Versus 1. BIHAR STATE BOARD OF RELIGIOUS TRUST, VIDYAPATI MARG, PATNA THROUGH ITS ADMINISTRATOR-CUM-OFFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT, BIHAR STATE BOARD OF RELIGIOUS TRUST, VIDYAPATI MARG, PATNA ******** For the Appellant :- Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh, Advocate Mr. Shyama Kant Singh, Advocate ************ 2 21/01/2009 Reg : I.A. No. 364 of 2009 This application has been filed for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Heard. For the reasons stated in the application, delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Applications stands allowed. We have heard the appeal also on merit. Writ petitioner- appellant, aggrieved by the order dated 22.10.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 3621 of 2007 dismissing the writ application, has preferred this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. Short facts, giving rise to the present appeal are; the writ petitioner- appellant (hereinafter referred to as petitioner), filed the writ application inter alia for quashing of the order dated 27.11.2006 passed by the Administrator-cum-Officer on Special Duty of the Bihar State Board of Religious Trust - 2 - (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Board’) whereby the petitioner’s promotion to the post of Assistant Superintendent was rescinded. Petitioner was functioning as Inspector in the office of the Board and by order dated 28.6.2004, he was made Incharge Assistant Superintendent. His case thereafter was considered by the Board at its meting held on 17th of March, 2005 and he was promoted to the post of Assistant Superintendent. The Board thereafter was superseded and Administrator-cum-Officer on Special Duty appointed, to whom the power of the Board is vested. Mr. B. B. Singh appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that before reverting the petitioner to the post of Inspector, a regular departmental inquiry was required to be held and admittedly same has not been conducted and hence, the order of reversion is vitiated on this ground alone. He further submits that petitioner’s reversion has taken place taking into account his image in the Board and before doing that neither any show cause notice nor any opportunity of hearing was given. We do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Singh. The petitioner has not been reverted to the post of Inspector as a measure of punishment. In fact order of promotion has been rescinded. The Board had rescinded the order of promotion as petitioner does not possess the qualification required for appointment to the post of Assistant - 3 - Superintendent. Further ground to rescind the order of promotion is that the post of Assistant Superintendent on account of reversion of one Shashi Bhushan Singh is not vacant. In this connection, it has been pointed out that Shashi Bhushan Singh was appointed as Superintendent but said appointment has not been approved by the State Government and hence he was reverted to the post of Assistant Superintendent. As a result thereof, no post of Assistant Superintendent remained vacant to accommodate the petitioner. It has also been pointed out that case of another employee namely, Tulsi Das Goswami who is the senior to the petitioner was not considered while appointing the petitioner to the post of the Assistant Superintendent. From what we have observed above, it is evident that the petitioner has not been reverted from the post of Assistant Superintendent to the Inspector as a measure of punishment and in such circumstance we are of the opinion that no departmental inquiry is required to he held. In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal. It is dismissed in limine. (Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, ACJ.) (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.) avin