IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10451 of 2005 1. Rana Ranjit Singh, Son of Late Ram Ashray Singh, Resident of Village and P.O. Aiyen, Police Station Atri, District Gaya. 2. Yogendra Jha, Son of Late Ram Bhola Jha, Resident of Village and P.O. Ojhowal, Police Station Bahadurpur, District Darbhanga. ------- Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Director General and Inspector General of Police Main Secretariat, Patna. 3. The Deputy Inspector of Police Human Right, Bihar, Main Secretariat, Patna. 4. The Inspector General of Police, Vigilance Electricity Cell, Bihar Electricity Board, Patna. ------ Respondents ----------- 3 18.1.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as below:- “1. That this is an application for issuance of an appropriate writ or direction commanding the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Assistant Sub- Inspector of Police with effect from the date their juniors have been promoted giving all consequential benefits to them.” As would be evident from the aforementioned vague prayer, no firm date of promotion has been claimed by the petitioner in this writ application. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also not point out 2 as to who were the juniors and when they were given such promotion. Counsel for the petitioner has referred to an order of promotion dated 2.6.2005 (Annexure-3) to contend that some of the juniors to him were given promotion by this order but when asked as to who amongst them was actually junior to the petitioner, he could not point out any particular name. From the representation filed by the petitioner as contained in Annexure-4/A addressed to the Deputy Inspector General (Human Rights), it would appear that the petitioner’s promotion was probably not given as his name itself was missing from the seniority list. Unfortunately, counsel for the State also does not improve the situation, inasmuch as, he has also not filed any counter affidavit despite indulgence given by this Court by an order dated 4.1.2010. In that view of the matter, this Court would give one more chance to the petitioner to file a compact representation stating therein as to who amongst the juniors were given such promotion on the post of 3 Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police and if the petitioner’s case for promotion vis-à-vis his juniors was not considered at the appropriate point of time, the respondents would be duty bound to reconsider the case of the petitioner at least from the date his juniors were given such promotion. It is, however, made clear that the petitioner will be given promotion only if he was qualified in all respect on the date his juniors were given promotion. That being so, this application is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file a representation, whereafter, the competent authority will consider the grievance of the petitioner for grant of promotion on the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police from the date on which any junior to the petitioner was given promotion. If the petitioner’s representation would be rejected, the competent authority will also be required to record reasons for the same. This exercise, however, must be completed within a period of six months from the date of filing of 4 such representation by the petitioner. With the aforementioned observations and direction, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)