IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16350 of 2009 1. VED PRAKASH S/O RAJENDRA SINGH AT PRESENT EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE JAMUI, AT P.S. & DISTT.- JAMUI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPTT., BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPTT., BIHAR, PATNA For the Petitioner : M/S Rajendra Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate Rajeev Kumar Singh. For the State : Mr. Anshuman, A.C. to A.A.G. III ----------- 2/ 12/01/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is alleged to be an accused in a vigilance case registered on 15.10.1986 for alleged mis-appropriation of a sum of Rs. 80,000/-. The vigilance case still remains pending and has not been disposed off till date for reasons stated to be not attributable to the petitioner. There have been no departmental proceedings against him. He is alleged to have been found eligible to be considered for promotion and the recommendation has been kept in sealed cover along with a post being kept vacant for him. The claim is for promotion to the post of Junior Selection Grade with effect from 7.5.1990 in the rank of S.D.O. and the Senior Selection Grade with effect from 7.5.1992 in the rank of Additional District Magistrate. It is his further case that his juniors have been promoted while his case remained pending. He has 2 actively pursued this matter by approaching this Court more than once for expeditious disposal of the trial. The counter affidavit of the Respondents is that in view of pendency of the criminal case, orders for his promotion could not be issued. They rely upon the gazette notification of the State Government dated 6.2.2004. From the counter affidavit of the Respondents, it appears to be an admitted position that the petitioner has not been subjected to any departmental proceedings till date. It also appears to be an admitted position that even the Respondents are not making any attribution against the petitioner for the pendency of the criminal case years and years later after its institution. The petitioner certainly does not have a right to claim for promotion but he has a right to be considered for promotion. The sealed cover procedure resorted to by the Respondents without initiation of a departmental proceedings and unnecessary prolonged process of the criminal trial has virtually resulted in the petitioner being indicted without trial, if he has been denied promotion claimed by him from 1990 till the year 2009. The notification relied upon by both sides 3 dated 6.2.2004 provides in clause 5 certain conditions and stipulations subject to which grant of ad hoc promotion may be considered. Consideration of a case for promotion under sealed cover and grant of ad hoc promotion are different issues. If Government procedures themselves provide for grant of ad hoc promotion in certain circumstances subject to the satisfaction of the authorities of the fulfilment of the conditions stipulated for the same, this Court would have expected that while annexing the Government guidelines in this regard to the counter affidavit, the Respondents themselves would have acknowledged their duty to consider the case of the petitioner in light of the same without requiring directions from this Court. The duty of the State Respondents is to assist this Court in dispensation of justice and not to increase litigation opposing the writ application of the citizen merely for the sake of it like an adversarial litigant. The Respondents are under a bounden duty to consider the case of the petitioner for ad hoc promotion in accordance with their own notification dated 6.2.2004 appended both to the supplementary affidavit to the writ petition as also to the counter affidavit. 4 Let such consideration be done by the Respondents more particularly in light of clause 5 & 6 of the same within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order and dispose the same by a reasoned and speaking order. If they chose to deny the benefit to the petitioner, it shall be required to adequately discuss the reasons for the same in context of the notification dated 6.2.2004 so that judicial review of their order, if necessary, may be facilitated. The writ application stands disposed. AKS/ ( Navin Sinha, J.)