IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1158 of 2009. 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR Through Commissioner cum-Secretary, Water Resource Department, Govt. of Bihar, Sichai Bhawan, Patna. 2. The Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Water Resource Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3.The Rehabilitation Officer, Medium Irrigation Project Bhagalpur, District Bhagalpur… ………….Appellants. Versus SURENDRA PRASAD SINGH Son of Sri Gambhir Singh, Resident of village Pahari Chak, P.O.Sonpur District Saran, …………..Respondent. with LPA No.1194 of 2009 THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . Versus MAHABIR RAM . with LPA No.1079 of 2009 THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . Versus BIRENDRA KUMAR SINGH . with LPA No.1092 of 2009 THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . Versus MD.AINUL HAQUE . with LPA No.1101 of 2009 THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . Versus MANOKAMNA BHAKTA . with LPA No.1099 of 2009 THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . Versus ASHOK KUMAR SHAHI . with LPA No.1147 of 2009 THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . Versus RAMADHAR SINGH . with LPA No.1144 of 2009 THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . Versus VIJAY KUMAR . 2 with LPA No.1131 of 2009 THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . Versus MD.AYUB KHAN . ----------- For the appellants : Mr. Roy Shiwaji Nath, A.A.G.III, Mr. Amrendra Kumar, A.C. to AAG III Mr. Ritesh Kumar. For the Respondents : Mr. S.P.Mukherjee, Sr.Adv. M/s Shanti Pratap, R.N.Dubey, A.K.Verma, S.K.Tiwary, Arvind Kumar and Sanjay Singh, Advocates. 9. 21.04.2011 The present Letters Patent Appeals arise out of the common order dated 18th February 2009 passed by the single Judge in CWJC No. 3728 of 2008 and analogous cases. It has been con tended by the learned counsel for the appellants that all the respondents were promoted in the year 1988 on different posts from the initial appointment of Chainman, i.e., Class-IV post in the Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar. It has also been contended that subsequently it was found that the promotions granted to the respondents were illegal and the authority concerned has been subjected to disciplinary action. The learned single Judge who heard the matter at length has negatived the action of the appellant-authorities in reverting the respondents from Class-III to Class-IV posts because of the promotions having been granted long back, on the ground that they were not qualified, in absence of any examination. Having heard the matter at length, the learned single Judge allowed the writ petitions and set aside the order impugned. Even 3 before us, contention has been raised saying that the respondents have been given promotion without limited examination nearly 19 years ago, hence, the concerned Director has been subjected to disciplinary action. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the respondents were promoted in the year 1988-89 and one of the respondents, i.e., respondent in L.P.A.No. 1079 of 2009, has already retired. It would be noticed that the date of initial appointment of respondents have been on different dates in the year 1979 and they have been promoted from the post of Class-IV to Class-III posts on different dates in the year 1988-89 and after 19 years, the appellant-authorities have sought to take action on the ground that they have not been subjected to any limited examination. However, it has been observed by the learned single Judge that because of 19 years having passed, it is not open to the appellants to say that their promotions were illegal, because of the reason that they have not been subjected to limited examination and also because they have not been confirmed on the initial post. There being no merit in this appeal, we are of the opinion that the order impugned passed by the learned single Judge, which is based on catena of decisions of this Court, cannot be interfered with. Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Jay/ ( T.Meena Kumari,J) ( Akhilesh Chandra,J)