IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16839 of 2009 1. SHABIR AHAMAD S/O SRI SHEIKHA FAHIMUL HAQUE R/O VILL- JAMUA, P.S. DHAKA, DISTT. EAST CHAMPARAN, POSTED ON THE POST OF ASSISTANT DRILLAR AT TUBE WELL DIVISION, BETTIAH AT PRESENT DEPUTED AT TUBE WELL DIVISION MOTIHARI, EAST CHAMPARAN Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SECRETARY, MINOR IRRIGATION DEPTT. GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. DEPUTY SECRETARY, MINOR IRRIGATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. CO-ORDINATOR-CUM-ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF, TUBE WELL PROJECT, VISHWESARAIYA BHAWAN, PATNA 5. CHIEF ENGINEER, TUBE WELL PROJECT, MINOR IRRIGATION, MUZAFFARPUR 6. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, TUBE WELL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR 7. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TUBE WELL DIVISION, MOTIHARI, EAST CHAMPARAN ----------- 03. 26.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 27.9.2008 by which he has been reverted to his basic post of Fitter on which he was initially appointed on 11.11.1967, after nearly 41 years. It is submitted that he has superannuated in the years 2008 while holding the post of Assistant Driller. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was promoted on the post of Fitter Grade-II on 27.10.1970 and posted as a Tube Well Driller with Fitter Grade-I status ever since 1973 and on 30.11.1977 he was made an Assistant Driller with effect from 1.4.1974. 2 This Court on 25.1.2010 had framed the specific question for the respondents to answer in the counter affidavit as follows:- “It is submitted that the petitioner holds the qualification of ITI which is also mentioned in his service book. His promotion to the Fitter grade as far back as on 1981 was never cancelled and he factually retired from the post of Assistant Driller which pay scale he also drew on his last day of service.” The Counter affidavit states in paragraph 3 at page 4 that the petitioner did not produce documentary proof of his qualification of I.T.I. certificate in his representation which was the requisite qualification for the post of Driller along with Matriculate. There is no reference to the entry made in the Service Book as specifically directed by this Court. The petitioner has asserted in paragraph-4 of the petitioner that he is also a matriculate not denied by the respondents in paragraph-4 of the counter affidavit. This Court considers that ground alone as sufficient not to sustain the impugned order dated 27.9.2008. It is accordingly set aside. The writ application is allowed. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)