IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2861 of 1992 Awadesh Pandey s/o Late Dwarika Pandey Resident of Village- Piuli, P.S. Mirganj, Distt. Gopalganj at present posted at Kochadhaman block, Distt. Purnea Block agriculture Officer. ------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Director of Agriculture, Bihar, Patna. 3. Director Agriculture (Administration), Bihar, Patna. 4. Under Secretary, Agriculture Department, Bihar, Patna. 5. Sureshwar Prasad Singh, Seeds Prebhanen Inspector, Department of Agriculture, Arrah (Bhojpur). 6. Prem Ranjan Sharma, Block Agriculture Officer, Riga, District Sitamarhi. 7. Sheo Kumar Rai, Block Agriculture Officer, Dalsingsarai, District Samastipur. 8. Sita Ram Jha, Junour Research Assistant under Joint Director of Agriculture, Adoptive Research, Department of Agriculture, Patna. 9. Mahendra Prasad Singh, Assistant Bio-Gas Officer, Department of Agriculture, Purena. 10. Thakur Daya Shankar Singh, Assistant Research Officer Quality Control, Mithapur, Patna. 11. Ramesh Kumar Shukla, Junior Research Assistant under Joint Director of Agriculture Adoptive, Research, Department of Agriculture, Patna. -------- Respondents ----------- 6 21.7.2009 No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. The prayer in this writ application reads as follows:- 1(a) To issue an appropriate writ or order including a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 1.11.91 (Annexure-VI) in so far as it detrimental to the interest and rightfull claim of the petitioner; (b) to issue an appropriate writ or order including a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing 2 notification dated 28.1.88 (Annexure-3) in so far as it detrimental to the interest and rightful claim of the petitioner, (c) To issue an appropriate writ including a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the Graduation list dated 6.11.87 by which the juniors to the petitioner have superseeded the latter, (d) To issue an appropriate writ, order, direction including a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to forebear from giving effect to the impugned notifications and further commanding them to prepare the Gradation List fresh in accordance with law; (e) To issue an appropriate writ or direction commanding the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner against the 40 existing promotional posts in accordance with law;” From the pleadings, it would appear that the case of the petitioner for promotion is based on an assumption that he is senior to the private respondent nos. 5 to 11. The respondents, however, have filed their counter affidavit contents whereof have not been controverted by the counsel for the petitioner despite service of its copy on 3 30.9.1992 to the effect that the private respondents are not only senior to the petitioner but in fact several seniors to the petitioner have also not given promotion. It has also been clarified that up-gradation of post cannot be treated to be a promotion. The stand taken therein that the up-gradation has been made on the basis of seniority and the petitioner being junior has not been upgraded only on account of his being placed below the private respondents has to be now accepted as an admitted fact in absence of any rebuttal to the stand taken by the respondents in their counter affidavit. In that view of the matter, this writ application must be held to be wholly misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)