IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6055 of 2009 Rajmani Prasad Singh . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . ----------- 3. 29.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and for the Chairman-cum-Director Magahi Academy (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Academy’). The petitioner is stated to be a Class-II Stenographer in the Academy. The status of the Academy has been described as created by the State Government for promotion of the Magahi language. The Academy is an autonomous organization functioning under the aegis of the Higher Education Department in the Department of Human Resources, Government of Bihar. Counsel for the parties are not at issue that the pay scale etc. is all fixed and approved by the State Government bringing the Academy within the ambit ‘State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India’. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was given first time bound promotion on 1.4.2002 with effect from 2.6.1991 placing him in the scale of 1640- 2900/-. This was modified on 26.5.2005 with effect from 1.11.1986 in the pay scale of 1800-3300/-. He was paid in that scale till August, 2006 when his salary has been reduced to his old pay scale in violation of the principles of natural justice. 2 Separate counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the Academy and the State. The contention of the Academy is that the time bound promotion was granted by the Director who had no authority to do so except after approval of the working committee and the general council of the Academy. The counter affidavit appears to be a bundle of contradiction when it alleges that the promotions were granted by the Director without approval, but simultaneously, at Paragraph-8 the counter affidavit states that the Committee is yet to be constituted by the Government and will start functioning when the promotion orders of the petitioner may be considered for ratification. At present there was no general committee. If there was no working general committee from whom was the Director to take approval. It is not clear that if the Director was in that circumstance required to forward it directly to the Human Resources Department or was authorized to take decisions himself. The counter affidavit of the State in Paragraph-8 states that the Director had to take the approval of the working committee. It also states that the Director was also bound to get approval of the Higher Education Department because financial aid is 3 granted by the department. The matter appears to be appropriate for reference to the Secretary, Department of Higher Education. The Secretary is expected to examine whether there was a working committee on the date that the time bound promotion was granted to the petitioner by the Director as also on the date that the pay scale was changed with retrospective effect. If there was no committee the question of Director taking approval from a non existent committee does not arise. In that event as per the stand of the State, the Director was required to obtain its approval. Let the Secretary consider matters in that background including the question of any post facto approval if he is otherwise satisfied. The final orders to be passed by him shall naturally govern the nature of the relief that may follow to the petitioner. Let the Secretary, Department of Higher Education pass such appropriate reasoned and speaking order within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)