IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11942 of 2010 1. Vijay Kumar Chaurasia S/O Late Anup Lal Chaurasia R/O Sanjay Sadan, Post Office Road, Puniachak, P.S.Shastri Nagar, Distt-Patna Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner-Cum- Secretary, Department Of Excise Bihar, Patna 2. The Joint Commissioner, Department Of Excise Bihar, Patna ---------------------------------- For the petitioner: Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, Sr. Advocate with Md. Faiz Ahmad, Advocate For the State: -------------- 2. 24.11.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the deliberation of the Departmental Promotion Committee dated 30.1.2008 directing his case for promotion to the post of Inspector of Excise to be kept under sealed cover. The grievance further is to quash the order dated 1.2.2008 canceling the ad hoc promotion granted earlier on 8.9.2006 on the post. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the minutes of the Departmental Promotion Committee dated 29.8.2006 which culminated in promotion on 8.9.2006 recites the recommendation of eligibility for promotion dated 15.7.2006. His character rolls and pendency of any allegations/disputes and fulfillment of other conditions of eligibility were all examined. He was then recommended for promotion. The only rider in the recommendation was that consequent to the reorganization of the State and the cadre division which was awaited, the promotion was described as ad hoc for the limited purpose dependant on the number of vacancies may fall to the share of the State. Except for the same it was a substantive promotion on 2 merits. The petitioner joined the promotional post on 11.9.2006 and started to discharge duties. The fact that a Vigilance case No. 122 of 2007 may have been registered against him on 2.11.2007 cannot be any justification for rescrutinising his promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee on 31.1.2008. The Departmental Promotion Committee had no jurisdiction to sit over its own decision except on the ground of non availability of the promotional post after reorganization. The deliberation dated 30.1.2008 itself provides that it is applicable only to those who had been promoted ad hoc on 8.9.2006 but the order of promotion had not been implemented by joining on the promotion post, payment of salary and instances had surfaced that persons ineligible had been promoted. Only such promotions were being recommended for recall. The petitioner did not fall in any of the categories. The respondents in their counter affidavit acknowledge that the petitioner had joined the promotional post of Inspector. Counsel for the State emphasised that the deliberation of the Departmental Promotion Committee dated 29.8.2006 adequately recites that it was not a substantive final promotion but an ad hoc promotion. The order for promotion issued subsequently on 8.9.2006 again clarifies that the promotion was ad hoc in nature and if subsequently ineligibility surfaced it could be cancelled and recovery of salary also ordered. If it was an ad hoc promotion, the Departmental Promotion Committee had jurisdiction to reconsider his case on 30.1.2008. The petitioner was made accused in the vigilance case before that date. That necessarily affects his claim for promotion. It has rightly been directed to be kept in sealed cover. The eligibility for promotion can be considered in due time or at the bare minimum after fulfillment of the time period prescribed in the government circular for ad hoc promotion notwithstanding pendency of a criminal case. 3 The counter affidavit filed by the respondents does not allege anything further. The deliberations of the Departmental Promotion Committee dated 29.8.2006 more than adequately reflects that it applied its mind in all its aspect with regard to eligibility of the petitioner to be considered for promotion. It found no error in his character roll, pendency of any proceeding lack of eligibility on any other ground. It was therefore for all practical purposes a substantive promotion given to the petitioner on the post of Inspector of Excise. Undoubtedly it contained a rider. The rider has to be read and understood only to the extent that it provides a restriction on the promotion granted. The rider cannot be stretched beyond what is mentioned in the order itself. it only states that the promotion was being given a nomenclature of ad hoc on grounds of reorganization of the State and on the issue of availability of vacancy only. If the promotion was otherwise in accordance with law the Court finds it difficult to hold that because of the rider the entire promotion itself becomes ad hoc. The interpretation put by the respondents is completely devoid of common sense or logic. . The order dated 8.9.2006 promoting the petitioner described as ad hoc has to be read, understood and appreciated in the specdified background only. The counter affidavit of the respondents in no uncertain terms acknowledges that the petitioner had joined and was working as Inspector of Excise before 31.1.2008. There was no occasion for the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Inspector of Excise at the Departmental Promotion Committee of 30.1.2008 if the condition imposed by the rider did not exist. The deliberation dated 30.1.2008 does not state any such ground. The institution of a vigilance case against the petitioner on 2.11.2007 was wholly irrelevant with regard to 4 a promotion dated 29.8.2006.The deliberation at column 6 of the Departmental Promotion Committee dated 30.1.2008 identifying persons who had been promoted but had not joined, clearly excludes the petitioner as the respondents themselves acknowledge that he had joined the promotional post. The grounds mentioned therein that those promotions subsequently surfaced to have been granted illegally does not apply to the petitioner. The institution of the vigilance case subsequently cannot make out a ground for a wrong promotion granted to the petitioner on a date when vigilance case was no where in sight. The order dated 1.2.2008 at column 5 is in gross contradiction with and clashes with the own stand of the respondents in their counter affidavit that the petitioner had joined the promotional post when it states that the promotion order with regard to him had not been implemented. Perhaps the deponent of the counter affidavit though claiming to have read the writ petition has not gone through it fully reflecting an attitude of casualness in his charge of official duties. The deliberation of the Departmental Promotion Committee dated 30.1.2008 are therefore set aside to the extent that it deals with the petitioner. The order dated 1.2.2008 is set aside to the extent that it concerns the petitioner. The writ application stands allowed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)