IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15374 of 2009 1. UDAY KUMAR S/O LATE RAGHUNATH RAM R/OVILL TARANPUR, P.S.PUNPUN, DISTT- PATNA 2. KRISHNADEO PRASAD SINGH S/O LATE RAM LAKHAN PRASAD SINGH R/OVILL HORIL BIGHA , P.S.NOORSARAI, DISTT- NALANDA 3. NAGESHWAR PRASAD S/O LATE DHUPANT MAHTO R/OVILL GOBARIA, P.S. RAHUI, DISTT- NALANDA 4. SHOHAN RAM S/O LATE JACHU RAM R/OVILL ERKI, P.S.JEHANABAD, DISTT- NALANDA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY , DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. ADDITIONAL SECRETARY , DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. DIRECTOR , DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR INDUSTRY, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 5. JOINT DIRECTOR , INDUSTRY , DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 6. DEPUTY DIRECTOR , INDUSTRY , DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA ----------- For the Petitioners:- Mr. Banwari Sharma, Adv. Mr. Shiv Kumar, Adv. For the State:- Mr. Pritish Kumar, Adv. ------------- 3. 3.2.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners originally were appointed on a Class-IV post and came to be appointed by promotion on Class-III post in October, 1987. On 18.3.2005, nearly 18 years later, they were asked to show cause why they should not be reverted to their Class-IV post. The show cause notice only states that the appointment/promotion was not in accordance with rules, the procedure and roster was not followed and were granted in excess of the availability of the 2 posts. No details of the contravention of procedures, and the number of sanctioned posts etc. was mentioned in the show cause notice to enable the petitioners to reply appropriately. The notice itself was therefore vague. The petitioners replied to the same when they stated that for such appointment by promotion they had also appeared at the necessary test and cleared the same. A non-speaking order of reversion then came to be passed on 18.3.2005, questioned by the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 4169 of 2009, which was disposed off in terms of C.W.J.C. No. 6245 of 2005, to consider the case of the petitioners in light of the observations contained therein. In C.W.J.C. No. 6245 of 2005, this Court negated the stand of the respondents with regard to non- availability of posts as the respondents did not make full disclosure before the Court with regard to the increase in number of posts for filling up from grade IV to grade III by virtue of Government resolution dated 14.10.1990 at Annexure-B therein. This Court, therefore, held that it was not satisfied with the defence of the respondents of non-availability of posts and then directed consideration of their cases. This aspect of the matter was therefore necessarily required to be considered by the respondents while considering the claim of the petitioners. The impugned order dated 9.3.2009 holds that there were only six posts available for such promotion and therefore the petitioners could not be granted the benefit in 3 view of the roster. It further states that this order of promotion shall not be treated as a precedent. Learned counsel for the State finds it difficult to demonstrate from the impugned order dated 9.3.2009, that the respondents had adequately considered the Government circular dated 14.10.1990 to arrive at a finding of non- availability of number of posts to justify a reversion after 18 years. The directions and observations of this Court with regard to the manner in which the case of the petitioners had to be considered was explicit and clear. If the respondents chose to ignore the order of this Court while passing orders purported to be in compliance of the order of this Court, the Court has little option but to set aside such orders. An administrative order which refuses to take into consideration relevant materials suffers from the vice of arbitrariness. The counter affidavit cannot explain the impugned order and does not purport to do so as it also does not deal with the Government circular dated 14.10.1990, so as to arrive at any positive finding of non-availability of sanctioned posts despite increase in the number of posts for such promotion by a Government resolution. This Court holds that in absence of a proper discussion in the impugned order complying with the direction of the Court, the interference to 4 be drawn is that the respondents have chosen to withhold correct information which directly affects the aspect of fairness in action on their part rendering the impugned order arbitrary. This Court fails to understand that how directions of this Court in a judicial order can be superimposed by the respondents with condition that the order of the Court shall not form a precedent. The order dated 9.3.2009, is clearly not sustainable and it is accordingly set aside. The writ application is allowed and the order of reversion dated 18.3.2005 stands set aside with all consequential benefits. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)