IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9996 of 2005 NITYANAND CHOUDHARY & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr.Ganesh Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate M/s Manish Kumar & Arun Kumar Singh Advocates For the State : Mr. V.M.K.Sinha, Advocate ----------- 3. 28.01.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioners are stated to be working as Mines Inspector. The counter affidavit does not deny that they hold diploma qualification in Mining and Mines Surveying. It is the further case of the petitioners that the post of Assistant Mining Officer is the next promotional post in which 40 % of the promotional seats are reserved for Mines Inspector holding diploma qualification in Mining and Mines Surveying. It is their further case that they are discharging duties as Assistant Mining Officer in in-charge capacity for long period of time and are drawing their pay scale at par with the post of Assistant Mining Officer without substantive order of promotion. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents is unfortunately a bundle of contradictions. It appears that the respondent, an officer of the rank of Under Secretary, did not even properly go through the paragraphs before signing the document. Learned Counsel for the State very fairly from Para 4 and 6 of the counter affidavit culls it out to show that the case of the petitioners is under consideration. Suffice it to notice that Para 4 of the counter affidavit expressly admits that 40 % of total posts Assistant Mining Officer are to be filled by promotion from the Mines inspector holding diploma in Mining and Mines Surveying. Para 7 of the counter affidavit does not deny the assertion of the petitioners that they are diploma holders. Let such appropriate consideration for promotion of the petitioners be completed within a maximum period of three months and appropriate orders issued. While considering the case of the petitioners the respondents are obliged to consider the grievance of the petitioners that appointments have been made in excess of the quota in the event that the respondents hold that the petitioners cannot be promoted for lack of vacancy. The writ application stands disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)