IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.193 of 2005 RAJ KUMAR SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3. 12.09.2008 Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner was appointed on a grade IV post in the Madhubani Collectorate. He then came to be promoted on a Grade III post of Dresser on the premise that he was a trained Dresser as evident from the order of promotion dated 30.6.1992. In support of his claim of being trained Dresser reliance is placed on a certificate issued by the Principal, Darbhanga Medical College. No material has been placed before this Court of the qualifications required for appointment on the post of Dresser and that the petitioner fulfilled the qualifications. The petitioner was then issued a show cause notice that his promotion was illegal and without following the procedure when he was shifted from one cadre to another without roster clearance etc. The petitioner filed his reply to the show cause when the impugned order dated 30.11.2004 has been passed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that the authorities never questioned his competence as a Dresser. Quite obviously the petitioner was conscious of his difficulties and therefore he has sought to place reliance on the certificate of the Principal of Darbhanga Medical College even while he was unable to assist the Court on requirement of trained Dresser for appointment. In any event of the matter, whether it be an issue of his disqualification for appointment on the post of Dresser or whether it be acknowledgement of his order of promotion as being contrary to law from one cadre to another, the fact that the petitioner may have continued for 12 years on the post of Dresser when he had no eligibility for appointment/promotion for the same this Court is not persuaded to accept the submission that there was no justification for issuance of the impugned order after such a lone passage of time. To that extent the writ application is rejected. If the petitioner was promoted wrongly, there was someone who promoted him wrongly and abused his powers for which faith was reposed in him by the State Government. If the respondents propose to effect recovery from the petitioner then they shall recover only 50% of the salary paid as Dresser after adjustment from the petitioner and the balance of 50% shall be recovered from the salary or pension, as the case may be, from the person who illegally promoted the petitioner. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)