IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6490 of 2004 Suresh Kumar Singh, son of Late Shishupal Singh, village Ferusa, PS Garkha, District Saran – Petitioner. Vs. 1) The State of Bihar through the Secretary cum Commissioner, Human Resources Dev. Department, Bihar, Patna. 2) The Director (Administration) cum Deputy Secretary, Primary & Adult Education Department, Bihar, Patna. 3) The Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna – Respondents. 5 17.1.2011 The petitioner has filed this writ petition claiming that he should be promoted in the Bihar Education Service, Class II from the date persons junior to him have been granted such promotion. A counter affidavit has been filed in this case in which it has been stated vide paragraphs 7 and 9 as follows: “7. The Hon’ble Court passed order dated 23.01.02 and 30.07.02 in above cases and dismissed the cases saying that as the matter was under review in the department and cases of all the persons were being reconsidered by the B.P.S.C. on request of the department. “There for the meeting of D.P.C. was held on 09.04.07. The promotion of the officers who were appointed in S.E.S. from onwards 01.01.77 was reviewed on the basis of available vacancies / roster clearance (reservation policy) / their performance report / character rolls / clearance from vigilance department and Lokayukt / Departmental Proceedings and it was found that some of the officers were promoted from the date they were not entitled to. “There for, dates of promotion of the officers were accordingly shifted. After getting the proceeding of departmental promotion committee, the department issued fresh notification shifting the date of promotion accordingly. “9. That it is also relevant to mention here that department found the petitioner superannuated from service on 31.03.93. Senior to the petitioner (of General Category) was granted promotion with effect from 20.12.02. Petitioner was not eligible for promotion before his retirement, there is no provision to give him promotion from the date after his retirement.” Considering the statements made aforesaid this court 2 cannot pass any order in favour of the petitioner in view of the fact that the petitioner retired from service on 31.3.1993 and the person senior to him was granted promotion on 20.12.2002 w.e.f. 1996. Thus, it appears that in fact the petitioner was not eligible for consideration for promotion during the period he remained in service. Counsel for the petitioner submits, although it is not on record, that on 31.8.2009 the Education Department came up with a news paper publication asking persons to file their objections with respect to the promotion granted w.e.f. 1.1.1977. I have already observed that persons senior to the petitioner were granted promotion w.e.f. 1996, it cannot be said that he was eligible for promotion when persons senior to him were granted promotion whereas, the petitioner retired in 1993 itself. If this fact is true, it would be waste of time, if this court would allow the petitioner to file a representation against the so called news paper publication. However, if the petitioner is able to make out a case that he was eligible for promotion despite the observations of this court, in such a circumstance it would be open to the petitioner to respond to the so called news paper publication. This writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observation. haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)