IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4450 of 2002 MITHILESH PRASAD SINGH son of late Ram Nandan Singh, presently posted as Junior Inspector, Jute Corporation of India Ltd. at Gulabbagh, Departmental Purchase Centre, Purnea (under Purnea Regional Office) District Purnea ( Bihar). Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA through the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Jute Corporation of India, 1, Shakespear Sarani, Calcutta 71. 2. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Jute Corporation of India, 1, Shakespear Sarani, Calcutta 71 3. The Personnel Manager, Jute Corporation of India, Head Office,1, Shakespear Sarani, Calcutta 71 4. The Regional Manager, Jute Corporation of India, Regional Office, Ford Company, Purnea District Purnea. ----------- For the petitioner: Smt. Punita Kumari Singh, Advocate For the respondents: Sri Umakant Shukla, Advocate ----------- 6 22-01-2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent Jute Corporation. This is the 3rd writ petition filed on behalf of the petitioner claiming promotion to the post of Senior Inspector on the basis of a limited competitive test held in the year 1987. Petitioner’s position in the merit list prepared on the basis of 1987 test was 16th. After every four promotions made on the basis of seniority, one promotion was required to be made on the basis of result of the limited competitive test (LCT). The life of the panel prepared on the basis of such test was one year. On behalf of the petitioner a dispute has been raised that figure of promotions granted on the basis of seniority at the relevant time as given in the impugned memorandum dated 20.2.2002 (annexure-8) are not correct and that in fact more than 54 Junior Inspectors were promoted at the relevant time when the life of the - 2 - 1987 panel on the basis of LCT was still intact. According to the petitioner, during that period as many as 61 Junior Inspectors were promoted and hence, instead of fourteen, fifteen Junior Inspectors were required to be promoted on the basis of LCT of 1987. It is further case of the petitioner that one person from the LCT list of 1987 above the petitioner was subsequently absorbed in different promotional post and, therefore, petitioner should be treated to be 15th person in the LCT list of 1987 and entitled for promotion since 61st junior Inspector was promoted on the basis of seniority, so as to maintain the ratio of 4:1 quota between promotees as per seniority and promotees as per LCT. The materials on record do not disprove the facts given out by the respondents in annexure-8. whatever may have been the discrepancies in their stand and submissions but in order to succeed in the present writ petition the petitioner was required to demonstrate that more than 54 Junior Inspectors were promoted on the basis of seniority during the period the LCT list of 1987 was still alive, i.e., within one year of its preparation. No such material has been produced and the promotion of subsequent persons appears to be after the life of LCT panel of 1987 expired. In view of aforesaid discussion, it is not possible to grant any relief to the petitioner on the basis of his position in the result of LCT of 1987. Admittedly, no person below the petitioner in the said merit list of 1987 has been promoted. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. - 3 - The respondents have assured the court that as and when petitioner’s chance of promotion on the basis of seniority arises, they shall consider the same fairly in accordance with law. BKS/ (Shiva Kirti Singh,J.)