IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14564 of 2009 1. RADHA RAM S/O SRI DAROGA CHOUDHARY R/O NALANDA COLONY, KHAJPURA, P.S. SHASTRI NAGAR, DISTT. PATNA AT PRESENT POSTED AS THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, ROAD WORKS CIRCLE, BAGMATI NAGAR CAMP, SITAMARHI, DISTT. SITAMARHI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY WATER RESOURCES DEPTT., BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE JOINT SECRETARY (MANAGEMENT) WATER RESOURCES DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY WATER RESOURCES DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA ----------- 2. 16.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 8633 of 2009 for his claim to promotion. Acknowledgement that he had been censured with effect from 2006-07 and his case could not be considered for three years, led this Court to direct his case to be considered after the expiry of the period of three years under a Government resolution dated 17.5.1982. Learned counsel submits that under the aforesaid resolution the petitioner was not eligible for consideration for the years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09. The language used in the notification is that he was not eligible for consideration from that year with respect to which punishment has been imposed for the next three years. ^^;g fu.kZ; fy;k gS fd fdlh inkf/kdkjh @ deZpkjh dks ftl o"kZ 2 ds vkjksih vFkok Hkwy&pwd ds dkj.k ^^fuUnu** dh ltk nh tkrh gS ml ^^fuUnu** dh mudh laiqf"V] n{krk & jksd ikj djus rFkk izksUufr ds ekeys ij ml o"kZ ls vxys rhu o"kksZa rd ds ^^fuUnu** dk dqizHkko iM+sxkA** Learned counsel for the State urges that the impugned order dated 2.9.2009 requires no interference as it states that the petitioner was eligible for such consideration with effect from 31.3.2010 calculating the duration of three years. The year for which the censure was imposed cannot be computed. The impugned order dated 2.9.2009 acknowledges that the juniors to the petitioner have been promoted with effect from 2.3.2009. If the petitioner was eligible for consideration on 2.3.2009, he is entitled to be considered for promotion from the date that his juniors have been promoted. Interpretation sought to be given by this authorities to the order dated 2.9.2009 is unfortunate and is nothing but an effort to multiply litigation before this Court by passing orders without taking responsibility of which in context of Government instruction. The resolution dated 17.5.1982 is clear and admits of no ambiguity at all, leaving scope for any interpretation. As no counter affidavit has been filed, let the Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department examine the order dated 2.9.2009 in context of the Government instruction dated 17.5.1982. 3 If the respondents find materials to support the order dated 2.9.2009 which the petitioner may not have placed before this Court, he shall to at liberty to pass an appropriate, reasoned and speaking order after furnishing such materials to the petitioner in advance. If the respondents are of the opinion that the petitioner has not concealed anything from this Court and has placed correct facts, any misinterpretation of the Government instruction dated 17.5.1982, shall have to be the subject matter of appropriate administrative disciplinary action. Let such decision be taken by the Principal Secretary, within a maximum period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and appropriate consequential orders passed. The writ application stands disposed off with the aforesaid direction. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)