IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1755 of 2002 RATISH KUMAR JHA SON OF SRI KAMESHWAR JHA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BADHGAON P.S.,SONBARSA, DIST-SAHARSA, PRESENTLY POSTED AS DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, BUXAR………… PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Chief Secretary, Govt of Bihar 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Secondary, Primary and Adult Education. 3. The Directory (Administration)-cum- Deputy Secretary, Department of Secondary, Primary and Adult Education, Govt of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna………… Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner:- Mr. Binod Kanth, Sr.Advocate Mr. Bimlanshu Mishra, Advocate For the respondents:-G.A-1 -------- 3/ 10-Nov-08 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The grievance of the petitioner is that as a Member of Bihar Education Service Class-II he has been wrongly denied promotion to Junior Selection Grade along with his admitted juniors on the ground that he has not completed the minimum prescribed period of service of six years for such promotion. The relevant facts necessary for deciding the controversy lie within a narrow compass. Petitioner was declared unsuccessful in 34th Combined Competitive Examination, 1986 held by the Bihar Public Service Commission. He applied before the Commission for re-totaling of his marks in two 2 subjects and for the same relief he moved this Court through CWJC. No.3274 of 1990 which was allowed on 15.1.1999 by Annexure-1 by holding that in one of the papers, on re-totaling his marks were found to be 70 instead of 68. On that basis this Court directed for fresh publication of petitioner’s results by the BPSC. On account of revised result the Commission recommended for petitioner’s appointment as Area Education Officer in Bihar Education Service, Class-II. The petitioner was give appointment on 12.7.1991 and he joined the service on the same date. Persons junior to the petitioner had in the meantime joined the service much earlier sometimes in the year 1988-89. The respondents, acting as per rules granted appropriate seniority to the petitioner by placing him above one Raj Kumar at Serial-20 of the gradation list and below Serial-19. However, they treated the service of the petitioner to have commenced not from the date his junior had joined the service but from 12.7.1991 and on that basis the respondents denied promotion to the petitioner in the Junior Selection Grade while his juniors were promoted to such higher scale. In the facts of the case, this Court 3 finds that although apparently the respondents are justified in holding that petitioner has not completed the minimum required length of service for promotion to Junior Selection Grade but in reality their stand violates Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Rules of fairness and requirement of justice warrant that the respondents must give to the petitioner the benefit of notional entry into service from the date his junior, Raj Kumar entered into service. On account of such notional length of service the petitioner must be deemed to have completed the qualifying service of six years on the date his junior completed the required length of service. Accordingly, petitioner must be given the benefit of Junior Selection Grade w.e.f the date his junior was granted such benefits. Petitioner would also be entitled to arrears of such promotion to Junior Selection Grade w.e.f due date. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. All the benefits including arrears should be given to the petitioner at the earliest and in any case within three months. perwez (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)