IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8885 of 2006 MD.ILYAS AHMAD, son of late Ashique Ali, Camp Guard, Sail Survey Project, Bihar Agriculture College, Sabour, District Bhagalpur ... Petitioner Versus 1. THE RAJENDRA AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY, Pusa, Samastipur 2. The Director Administration, Rajendra Agriculture University, Pusa, Samastipur 3. The Dean cum Principal, Bihar Agriculture College, Sabour, District Bhagalpur 4. The Chief Sail Survey Officer, Sail Survey and Land Use Planning Bihar, Sabour, Bhagalpur ... Respondents ----------- 3. 29.9.2010 No one appears for the petitioner. Counsel for the respondent University is present. In this writ application the prayer of the petitioner reads as follows: “I. For issuance of writ or mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents authorities to give promotion to the petitioner on the post of Class III with effect from 3.4.2002 the date from which the petitioners equals and juniors have been granted promotion the Class III post.” With regard to the aforementioned relief the respondents have raised preliminary objection as with regard to maintainability of the writ application by 2 taking the following stand in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit: “That the instant writ application is not maintainable in view of the fact that the petitioner has stated in paragraph 15 that he has earlier moved for the same relief in C.W.J.C.No. 12550/2004 which was dismissed for non-appearance on 22.2.2006 and as such, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarjuga Transport Case reported in AIR 1987 SC page 88 the instant writ application is not maintainable.” Additionally the respondents have also explained that as there was no promotional post of Camp Guard, a Class IV post, held by the petitioner. The petitioner was granted time bound promotion and to that extent paragraphs 9 to 11 of the counter affidavit would be a complete answer to the case of the petitioner as pleaded in the writ application. Paragraphs 9 to 11 of the counter affidavit reads as follows: “9. That the statement made in paragraph no. 5 and 6 it is stated here that the grant of promotion from Class IV to Class III depends on the availability of post, qualification, suitability and 3 aptitude for the post. The petitioner was not granted promotion from Class III to Class III but he was granted first time bound promotion with effect from 1.4.1981 vide memo no. 5921 dated 16.9.1985 and 2nd time bound promotion with effect from 5.11.1991 vide memo no. 2405 dated 19.6.1993 and accordingly he was granted all the consequential monetary benefits on account of first and 2nd time bound promotion. 10. That in reply to the statement made in paragraph no.7 it is submitted here that the name of the petitioner figures at Sl.No. 15 in the seniority list dated 31.12.2009. However, his case was not considered for promotion as the post of Camp Guard was not considered for grant of promotion. 11. That in reply to the statement made in paragraph no.8 it is stated here that the person named therein have been considered and granted promotion on account of seniority, suitability and their qualification in view of the office order no. 588 dated 4.12.2001 whereas the case of the petitioner was not considered as the post of Camp Guard was not included for consideration for promotion in Annexure 2” 4 Such statement made in the counter affidavit has not been controverted by the learned counsel for the petitioner by filing any rejoinder to the same. In the opinion of this Court there is no inherent right of promotion to any employee even if there is no promotional post available in the cadre. Additionally this Court would find that the University having given the petitioner the benefit of two time bound promotion scheme, the substitute of regular promotion by way of removal of stagnation of an employee was not required to give regular promotion to the petitioner even in absence of a promotional post of Camp Guard. That being so, this writ application has no merit and the same is dismissed both on the ground of preliminary objection as also on merits. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/