IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13721 of 2003 BACHCHA PANDEY . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. ----------- 04 08.02.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner was brought into the work charged establishment on 1.4.1972 in the category of Supervisor Grade-II. He came to be inducted in the regular establishment on 5.5.1982 with effect from 1.4.1977 against the post of Supervisor Grade- II itself. On 17.6.1982 while he held the post of Supervisor Grade-II, he came to be absorbed as a Junior Research Assistant in the same pay-scale. Vide order dated 18.12.2002 a show-cause came to be issued to him that appointment/ promotion on the post of Junior Research Assistant had not been done by the Chief Engineer raising other issues of his ineligibility on grounds of lack of qualification etc. The petitioner replied to the same in detail when the impugned order dated 15.10.2003 reverting him from the post of Junior Research Assistant has been passed. From a conjoint reading of the show-cause notice given, the reply submitted and the impugned 2 order it is manifest that the respondents did not find any demerit in the eligibility of the petitioner on any of the other grounds of qualifications or jurisdiction, as stated in the show-cause notice. The cause shown came to be accepted to that extent. The only ground mentioned in the impugned order is that since he came to be inducted in the work charged establishment after 1972, he was not eligible to be considered for such promotion. This appears to be based on an administrative direction dated 9.8.1983 that the periods spent in the work charged establishment could be counted for such promotion. Learned counsel submits that if such benefit was to be granted to those who came into the work charged establishment till 30.12.1971 and the petitioner came into the work charged establishment on 1.4.1972, the respondents having been satisfied that the petitioner fulfilled all other conditions of eligibility and qualifications for such promotion, there was no justification for the annulment of such promotion nearly after 20 years. In the limited nature of the controversy with regard to a period of approximately 90 days only when the eligibility of the petitioner otherwise with regard to 3 his qualifications for promotion/appointment on the post of Junior Research Assistant is not disputed on behalf of the respondents, equity lies in favour of the petitioner not to allow the respondents to disturb matters settled and operative for 20 years in absence of any allegations with regard to fraud, misrepresentation etc. on part of the petitioner. If it had been the case of the respondents that the petitioner was not fulfilling the essential conditions of eligibility for such promotion, the matter would have been entirely different. The petitioner rightly relies upon the orders of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 13439 of 2002 to contend that such reversion after 20 years was not sustainable in law. The impugned order dated 15.10.2003 is accordingly set aside. The applications stands allowed with all consequential benefits. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)