IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1528 of 2002 RAM BALAK RAM s/o late Amar Ram, Resident of Village-Bhairoganj, P.S- Bhairoganj, Dist-Betia (West Champaran), at present working as corresponding clerk Building Division, Betiah………. Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Secretary, Building Construction Rehabilitatioin Department, Patna 3. The Chief Engineer, Building Construction, North Bihar, Sub Division-Patna. 4. The Engineer-in-Chief, Building Division, Betia. 5. The Superintending Engineer, Building Construction Circle, Muzaffarpur. 6. The Executive Engineer, Building Division, Motihari. 7. Devanandan Choudhary, S/o not known, head corresponding clerk, Building Division, Sheohar. 8. Ashok Sharma, S/o not known, Head Clerk, Building Division, office Betia (West Champaran.) ----------- For petitioner:-Mr. S.K.Thakur, Adv. Mr.S.P.Pavasar, Adv. For State:- None 4. 17.11.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Nobody appears on behalf of the State. Petitioner has raised a grievance that in spite of being senior to Respondent No.6 he has been superseded in the matter of promotion and appointment to the post of head clerk. He has claimed promotion to that post w.e.f. 19.2.2001 on the basis of seniority over Respondent No.6. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State as well as the averment in the writ petition make it clear that petitioner has not passed the required departmental examination - 2 - which was essential for promotion. The counter affidavit as well as learned counsel for the petitioner both have placed reliance upon a communication of Finance Department dated 12.8.1992 (Annexure-4). According to Clause- 4(1) of the said communication no reversion will be permitted or required in case of promotion earned by the persons in the post of clerk prior to 1.9.1983 as there was no requirement for passing departmental examination for promotion. According to Clause-4(3)for future promotions in the vacant posts in the works department preference will be given to those who have passed the written examination or those who are found eligible for being exempted from such examination. This Court finds that Clause-1 is only to prevent hardship of those who have already been promoted to higher posts and it applies only where the issue is whether a clerk already promoted to higher post should be reverted or not. It does not apply to future promotions which are covered by Clause-4 (3). Since Respondent No.6 had passed - 3 - departmental examination whereas petitioner had not passed such examination and was not eligible for exemption in past, in the facts of the case as appearing from the writ petition and the counter affidavit, this Court is unable to grant any relief to the petitioner. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. perwez (Shiva Kirti Singh,J)