IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17487 of 2009 1. DEEPAK LAL S/O LATE HIRAMAN RAJAK R/O MOHALLA- RAJIV NAGAR, ROAD NO.20, TOWN AND DISTT.- PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (ADMINISTRATION) BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (HEADQUARTER AND ADMINISTRATION) BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE TIRHUT RANGE, MUZAFFARPUR 6. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE TIRHUT DIVISION, MUZAFFARPUR 7. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE MUZAFFARPUR ----------- 02/ 23/02/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that he became eligible, was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee and recommended for promotion from the post of Sub- inspector of Police to the post of Inspector of Police in 1997. Ignoring his claim allegedly his juniors were promoted. There were no proceedings or punishment pending against him on that date. The promotion was allegedly denied on grounds of non-availability of adequate number of posts. The grievance now is that by taking into consideration events much subsequent to the year- 1997 he is sought to be denied promotion. Eligibility for the promotion has to be considered on the date that it falls due. In 1997, if the petitioner had no proceedings/punishments against 2 him and was found fully competent and eligible to be promoted, but could not secure promotion on account of non-availability of adequate number of posts, when it is his further claim that his juniors came to be promoted, the petitioner cannot be subjected to fresh scrutiny to deny him the benefit of the earlier clearance granted for his promotion by taking into consideration subsequent events. Eligibility and entitlement once having been affirmed is required to be given full effect to with effect from the date that he was found so eligible in 1997. Let the case of the petitioner be now considered for promotion, in accordance with law, within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The impugned order dated 13.5.2009 for the reasons contained in the recital therein is, therefore, not sustainable on the face of it and is accordingly set aside to enable such fresh consideration. The writ application stands allowed. KC/ ( Navin Sinha, J.)