1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9507 of 2003 1. BIDYADHAR PANDEY, son of Parmeshwar Pandey, resident of village Ongari, Via Ekangarsarai, P.O. Ongari, P.S. Nalanda, District Nalanda 2. Shyam Kishore Prasad Singh, son of late Bharat Prasad Singh, resident of village and P.O. Toigash, P.S. Jairampur More, Via Barbigha, District Sheikhpura 3. Ram Chabila Singh, son of late Pannu Singh, resident of village and P.O. Bhakhari, P.S. Dhanurua, District Patna 4. Ram Sagar Singh, son of late Sarju Singh, resident of village Tickaitpur, P.O. Neora, P.S. Bihta, District Patna 5. Jagdish Prasad Singh, son of Heet Narain Singh, resident of village Gawaspur, P.O. Dumri, P.S. Poonpoon, District Patna 6. Satyendra Singh, son of Sri Bangali Singh, resident of village + P.O. Sarwan, P.S. Arwal, District Arwal, Jehanabad … Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Commissioner cum Secretary, Department of Health, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. Directorate of Health Services, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 4. Assistant Director, Health Services, (Falaria Control), Bihar, Patna 5. Dr. Baldeo Singh, son of not known, at present posted as Assistant Director, Health Services, (Falaria Control), Bihar, Patna … Respondents. ----------- 3. 13.9.2010 No one appears for the petitioners. Counsel for the State is present. The following prayer of the petitioners in this writ application: “This is an application for a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 23.6.2003 (in so far as, if relates to the petitioners) by which the regular promotions, granted to the 2 petitioners in the next higher posts/ scales under Filaria Control Programme, in pursuant to a duly constituted selection committee between 1984-1986 have sought to be cancelled without any allegations of fraud and misrepresentation on the part of petitioners and petitioners have been reverted back to their original post after having served on the promotional posts for more than 18-20 years to the entire satisfaction of superior authorities and also having drawn the pay attached to such promotional posts uptill now. The impugned order is being challenged on the ground that different orders of the Health Department as referred to in the termination order (Annexure 1) and which are the grounds for issuing impugned order confines to cancellation of such cases only in which the authorities had indirectly granted the benefits of higher pay scales/ promotion in the garb of replacement from one post to another and cannot include the cases of petitioners who have been granted regular promotions after following all procedures including recommendation of a duly constituted selection committee and thus the impugned order in so far 3 as it relates to petitioners is a camouflage. Respondent no.4 who is/ was responsible for granting benefit of such illegal promotion in large numbers by way of replacement from one post to another, in order to save his own skin, included the cases of the petitioners as well whose cases can not fall within the ambit of the letters/ circulars/ directions as referred to in the impugned order.” has been answered in the counter affidavit filed by respondents no. 4 and 5, wherein it has been explained that in the promotion of the petitioners none of the provisions of the Government circular contained in the resolution dated 25.3.1983 was followed and in this regard it has been also explained that such promotion to the petitioners was given without recommendation of the duly constituted Promotion Committee as contemplated in the circular dated 25.3.1983. It has also been explained that in giving such promotion the Government policy of the reservation and roaster was not followed and in fact some of the petitioners like petitioner no.4 were not even eligible for grant of promotion. The 4 respondents in their counter affidavit have also explained that all such promotions being illegal have been cancelled as a whole and there has been no pick and choose in cancellation of such promotion. The detailed counter affidavit in fact leaves nothing for this Court to decide especially when the copy of the counter affidavit was served on the counsel for the petitioners on 2.4.2004 and no rejoinder thereto has been filed by the petitioners controverting any of the aforementioned fact. That being so, when the promotion of the petitioners was in teeth of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as also prescribed procedure laid down by the Government, this Court would find no error in the impugned order cancelling such illegal promotion of the petitioners. This writ application being devoid of any merit is, hereby, dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/