IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6032 of 2006 1. SHYAM BIHARI SINGH, son of late Trilokinath Singh, at present posted as Peon in the office of the Asstt. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, East Circle, Muzaffarpur. 2. Chandeshwar Prasad, son of Rampratap Bhagat, at present posted as Peon in the office of Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur. _________ Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. Secretary to the Government, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Patna. 3. Secretary to the Government, Department of Cooperative, Bihar, Patna. 4. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bihar, Patna. 5. Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur. 6. Asstt. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, East Circle, Muzaffarpur. ----------- For the petitioners: Mr. Yogendra Mishra, Sr. Advocate. For the State : Mr. Sunil Kumar Karn, AC to AAG 6. ------ 03. 18.11.2010 Order dated 1.10.2005, contained in Annexure-8, has been assailed in the present application, which has come to be passed on the basis of the earlier direction of this Court when a dispute was raised by the petitioner claiming promotion as a matter of right on a Class III post. On the claim of the petitioner a speaking order has been passed by the Registrar, Co-operative Society wherein taking note of the various circulars of the State of Bihar he has come to a considered opinion that no employee belonging to Class IV category has a right of promotion on a Class III post as a matter of course. 50 per cent of such posts are to be filled up by direct recruitment and rest 50 per cent by holding a limited competitive 2 examination. In addition to that, it has also been recorded that the claim of the petitioner to be appointed as a clerk by way of promotion also seems to be misplaced because channel of promotion from a peon is not to a post of clerk. That is a separate cadre which is governed by its rule or policy. It is in this background that the claim of the petitioner came to be rejected when he decided to assail the order afresh. There are two primary contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, one that the claim of the petitioner for promotion is ongoing for a very long time and the respondents ought to have considered his claim in light of the policy or the rules in existence at the relevant time and that the petitioner is not insisting on promotion on the post of a clerk. That is only an example. He should have been given promotion to the post which is available for such persons. This Court has difficulty in raking up the matter afresh and getting to the bottom of it again in light of the fact that claim of the petitioner was ordered to be considered by the respondents in light of the issue raised by him in the earlier writ application, which is annexed as Annexure-7. Registrar, Co- operative Society has considered the matter from that angle and given his opinion on the issue. If the reasoning given by him is not in consonance with the claim of the petitioner and as things stood then, the Court will not upturn the decision merely because the petitioner is now taking an improved stand as to what post he had 3 to be promoted to and under what circumstances. The reasoning given by the Registrar, Co-operative Society for rejection of the claim of the petitioner is not misplaced and does not deserve interference. The writ application is dismissed. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)