IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2750 of 1994 KALOOT CHAUDHARY, son of Late Sukan Chaudhary, resident of Mohalla Badarghat Idgah Road, P.O. Gulzarbagh, P.S. Alamganj, District Patna … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Commissioner cum Secretary, Irrigation Department, Bihar, Patna 3. The Additional Commissioner cum Special Secretary, Water Resources Department, Bihar, Patna 4. Additional Secretary, Water Resources Department, Bihar, Patna 5. Under Secretary, Water Resources Department, Bihar, Patna … Respondents. ----------- 9. 5.8.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application for grant of promotion in super time scale with effect from 1.4.1991 was rightly not allowed by the Respondents inasmuch as on that day when a junior to him was given such promotion with effect from 1.4.1991 he was already reeling under an order of punishment dated 24th July, 1992 of an adverse entry in A.C.R. for the period 1991-92 by way of warning for his misconduct committed on 23.3.1992. It is a settled concept in service jurisprudence that if a person is considered for promotion his service records must be clean. Once the petitioner and one Baleshwar 2 Prasad were considered for such promotion in super time scale with effect from 1.4.1991 in the same transaction and if the petitioner’s service record on the date of consideration, the meeting of D.P.C., was found to be tainted containing an order of punishment and the service record of Sri Baleshwar Prasad, his junior was without any blemish and adverse entry, the resultant decision of the respondents to supercede the petitioner cannot be said to be vitiated in law. The next submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the misconduct alleged against the petitioner was of the year 1992 and therefore, he could not have been given a punishment of warning and an entry in his A.C.R. for the period 1991-92 is to be also only noted for its being rejected. First of all this writ application is not related to the merit and correctness of punishment order dated 24.7.1992 and secondly the misconduct allegedly committed by the petitioner being one dated 23.3.1992, which fell in between April 1991 to March 1992, the respondents 3 were justified in recording such punishment in his A.C.R. of the concerned calendar year i.e. 1991-92. No other points having been argued, this Court must hold the grievance of the petitioner for promotion in super time scale with effect from 1.4.1991 is wholly baseless and without merit. That being so, this application is dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/