IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2347 of 2005 BINOD KUMAR Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the petitioner : Mr.Bijay Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. Mayank Rukhaiyal, Junior counsel to Government Advocate-V ------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ------ Dated, the 18th August, 2008 The petitioner came to be appointed as Class IV employee on 17th December, 1990.He is graduate and according to him, he was entitled to be promoted as class III employee from the quota of 25 per cent which provides for promotion from Class IV employee to Class III employee. Having not been given promotion, he approached this court by filing a writ petition being CWJC No. 1495 of 2000. The said writ petition came to be disposed of on 3rd February, 2005 by the following order: “The respondents are directed to consider the case of promotion of the petitioner from the date others were promoted, taking into account that there were 30 vacancies available for the promotees and not 18 vacancies as incorrectly reported by the commissioner as well as in the counter affidavit filed. The above exercise must be done within 12 weeks from the date of service of a copy of this 2 order upon the respondents and within that time relief to which petitioner is entitled to, if any must be reach to the petitioner. It is made clear that the petitioner, if found otherwise fit to be promoted, must be given promotion from the date, 18 promotees were given promotion and shall be paid all financial and other benefits attached to such promotion.” 2. Despite that, the writ petitioner was not given promotion. He approached this court by filing contempt application which has come up for consideration before us. 3. From the perusal of the order dated 3rd February, 2005, it transpires that the main thrust of the argument of the writ petitioner in the writ petition was that similarly situated persons have been promoted while the petitioner has been denied promotion and it was for this reason that in the order dated 3rd February, 2005, the respondents were directed to consider the case of promotion of the petitioner from the date others were promoted. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no.5 and it is stated that promotion given to some earlier persons, based upon which the petitioner claims promotion in the writ petition, has already been withdrawn. In paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit, the following statement has been made. “That it is most humbly submitted that since the case of similarly situated persons Sri Tiwari was considered at length and reasoned order has been passed by Annexure-‘A’ of this show cause, the case of the petitioner has been also rejected in the light of the decision, that the basis on which the petitioner has claimed for promotion was itself illegal and against the Govt. Rule and accordingly the promotion given from class IV to class 3 III have been cancelled by Annexure-‘A’. Accordingly the case of the petitioner has also been rejected by the Regional Deputy Director of Education Patna division Patna by memo no. 73 dated 30.1.2006 explaining the reason of rejection.” 5. A rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner in response to the counter affidavit filed by respondent no.5. It is stated that the promotees whose promotions were cancelled have again been reinstated on the promotional post. Copy of the office order dated 2nd April, 2007 has been placed on record. From perusal of the office order dated 2nd April, 2007, it transpires, that aggrieved by the order of the cancellation of the promotion, affected parties approached this court by filing writ petition being CWJC No.2414 of 2006 (Yogendra Ram & ors Vs. State of Bihar & Ors ). The said writ petition came to be disposed of on Ist December, 2006, whereby the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Bihar, was directed to look into the promotion given to the petitioners and pass an appropriate order thereon after holding an inquiry. It transpires that the Commissioner-cum Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Bihar held an inquiry and after hearing the parties, set aside the order of cancellation of promotion given to those promotees, and consequent thereupon, the order dated 2nd April, 2007 has been issued. 4 6. Having considered the entire material, we are of the view that the State Government and its functionaries cannot apply the policy of pick and choose and give effect to the orders of the court as may be found convenient by them. The promotion given to Yogendra Ram and seven others which is clearly reflective from the office order dated 2nd April, 2007, having attained finality, the case of the petitioner has to be examined as directed in the order dated 3rd February, 2005 afresh and in the light of the office order dated 2nd April, 2007. 7. We direct respondent no.5 to comply with the order dated 3rd February, 2005 and in the light of the office order dated 2nd April, 2007 as early as possible and in any case not later than two months from the date of production of a copy of this order. 8. With the aforesaid observations, MJC is disposed of. R.M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. Sunil/