IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5338 of 2004 1. BAL KRISHNA SINGH S/O LATE SUKHARI SINGH R/O VILL- NAUGARH, PS- BHAGWANPUR, DISTT- KAIMUR (BHABHUA) 2. LUTAWAN PANDEY, S/O LATE BUTAN PANDEY R/O VILL- BHITARI BANDH PS- BELAON, DISTT- KAIMUR (BHABHUA)-PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DIRECTOR PANCHAYATI RAJ, BIHAR AT PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KAIMUR AT BHABHUA------------- -----------------------------RESPONDENTS ----------- 3 23.7.2010 Heard learned for the parties. Both the petitioners are claimants for promotion to the post of Panchayat Supervisor which has been denied to them by speaking order contained in annexure-1. Admitted position is that petitioner no.1 retired from service on 31.7.95 and petitioner no.2 on 31.1.96. Earlier they had filed a writ application in the year, 2003 seeking a direction for consideration of their representation for promotion. The writ application was disposed of with a direction upon the respondent to consider their claim and pass a speaking order which has been done by virtue of annexure-1 which is dated 13th of March, 2004. It is this speaking order which is under challenge. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that they are entitled for promotion after completion of ten years of service. There was recommendation in their favour in terms of annexure-2 but no decision was taken in the matter. The reason given therein was that the next promotional post which the petitioners are claiming was State Cadre post and certain procedure had been laid down for promotion on that post. A gradation list had to be prepared at the State level and promotion could be granted based on seniority - 2 - thereof. Admitted position is that the gradation list was published for the first time in 2000 and thereafter the orders of promotion have been issued in favour of the persons who were still in service. In case of these two petitioners since they retired many years ago and they did not exists in service, therefore they could not be granted promotion. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that delay in preparation of the gradation list was on the part of the State and that cannot have come in the way of the claim of the petitioners’ promotion. They claim that if the steps had been taken in time, the petitioners would have availed the benefit of promotion. The fact stands that the post on which promotion had to be granted was governed by certain procedure. Petitioners did not have a right of promotion as a matter of course. The gradation list had to be prepared at the State level for which collection of data and input took some time and by the time the gradation list was prepared, both the petitioners superannuated. Promotion orders are made or decided on the basis of what actually happened and can not be on the basis of what ought to have been done. Since promotion could be granted only after the gradation list could be prepared, the reasoning given in the speaking order is neither arbitrary nor misplaced. This writ application is misplaced and it is dismissed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)