IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1478 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8527 of 2009 ====================================================== Jagdish Pathak, S/o Ramashray Pathak, Resident of Village-Pakri, Police Station-Dumariya Ghat, District-East Champaran. .... .... Petitioner/Appellants Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Secretary, Department of Registration, Excise and Liquor Prohibition, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Under Secretary, Department of Registration, Excise and Liquor Prohibition, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. District Magistrate-cum-District Registrar, East Champaran, At, P.O. & Police Station-Motihari. 5. Registrar General, Bihar at Patna. 6. District Sub-Registrar, East Champaran, At, P.O. & Police Station- Motihari, District-East Champaran. .... .... Respondents/Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Uma Kant Shukla, Advocate with Mr. Rajesh Ranjan No.1, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Ajit Kumar, A.C. to A.G. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 5. 15-11-2011 Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 18th August 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in above Patna High Court LPA No.1478 of 2011 (5) dt.15-11-2011 2 / 3 2 C.W.J.C. No. 8527 of 2009, the writ petitioner has preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The appellant is a retired Government servant. He retired as Clerk in 2005. In the writ petition filed in the year 2009, the appellant claimed that the appellant was entitled to time bound promotion in 1991 as envisaged by Government resolution No.10770F dated 30th December 1981 and that he be given benefit of Assured Career Progression. The learned single Judge has rejected the claim in respect of time bound promotion effective from 1991. So far as Assured Career Progression is concerned, the learned single Judge has reserved liberty to the appellant to make a representation on the ground of hostile discrimination. Feeling aggrieved, the writ petitioner has preferred this Appeal. Although learned advocate Mr. Uma Kant Shukla appearing for the appellant has produced copy of the part of the aforesaid resolution dated 30th December 1981, we can safely say that the said resolution assured time bound promotion to Government servants provided such Government servant “is otherwise fit for promotion”. The claim of the appellant was specifically rejected on the ground that he did not acquire qualification for promotion to the higher post. Before the learned single Judge the appellant failed to establish that the appellant was otherwise fit for promotion and thus was entitled to time bound promotion; nor before us the appellant has succeeded in establishing his claim for time bound promotion. Besides, the claim is too stale to be entertained in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The claim has been made more than 15 years after the date of cause of action and three years after the retirement Patna High Court LPA No.1478 of 2011 (5) dt.15-11-2011 3 / 3 3 of the appellant from service. In our opinion, the learned single Judge has rightly rejected the claim for time bound promotion. As to the Assured Career Progression, as observed by the learned single Judge relevant materials are not placed on record. Nevertheless, the learned single Judge has allowed the appellant to make a representation on the ground of hostile discrimination. We are of the opinion that the appellant could not have been granted relief beyond the aforesaid liberty reserved by the learned single Judge. No case for interference is made out. Appeal is dismissed in limine. Pawan/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)