IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6588 of 2010 1. Ishwar Nath Jha S/O Late Pandit Sri Rajendra Jha R/O Vill Bangaon, P.O.Bajpatti, P.S. Bajpatti, Distt-Sitamarhi Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Industries Government Of Bihar, Patna 3. The Director Of Industries Government Of Bihar, Patna 4. The Director, Upendra Maharathi Institute Of Industrial Design Department Of Industries Patna-800013 ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Suraj Narain Yadav, Adv. For the State:- Mr. Amarendra Kumar, Adv. -------------- 3. 16.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is stated to be a Laboratory Assistant in the Upendra Maharathi Institute of Industrial Design under the Industries Department. He is aggrieved by the order dated 5.3.2010 denying his claim to be provided a promotional avenue on the ground that it was a solitary post and there was no provision for promotion from that post to the Bihar Industrial Service Cadre. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Schedule IV of the Bihar Industrial Service Cadre Rules identifies the feeder posts from which promotions are to be made to the Bihar Industrial Service. The educational qualifications prescribed in Schedule 2 for these identified feeder posts are the same as possessed by the petitioner as Laboratory 2 Assistant. Schedule –IV apart from identifying 4 feeder sources at item-5 includes other equivalent posts. The post of Laboratory Assistant can well be considered under residuary Category-5. The respondents have provided promotional avenues for other solitary posts details whereof are mentioned in the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner. The respondents in their supplementary counter affidavit have unsuccessfully sought to distinguish the issue by urging that provisions of time bound promotion and A.C.P. have been provided on the post of Laboratory Assistant. The core issue for consideration by the Court in the writ application is whether the respondents are duty bound to provide promotional avenues in Government service for a post or can a Government employee be permitted to stagnate on the same post throughout his service career completely denying any avenue for promotion. An avenue of substantive promotion is an entirely different issue and has no co-relation to grant of A.C.P or time bound promotions which are as the very nomenclature suggests limited by duration of time on a post as an anti stagnation measure, though the service tenure may be longer than the 3 same. The Court is satisfied that the post of Laboratory Assistant being a solitary post is not sufficient explanation for denying promotional avenue and urging there is no provision for that post as a feeder source into the Bihar Industrial Service. If feeder posts are identified in the Bihar Industrial Service and the petitioner possess qualifications equivalent to the feeder post, Schedule-IV in Item-5 recognizes residuarily other equivalent posts. These other equivalent posts have therefore to be identified and which may include the post of Laboratory Assistant as the petitioner urges. The constitutional obligation of the State to provide promotional avenues for a post has been emphasized by the Supreme Court in 1990 (suppl) (SCC) 688 (O.Z. Hussain (Dr) (Ms) v. Union of India) holding at Paragraph-7 as follows:- “7. This Court, has on more than one occasion, pointed out that provision for promotion increases efficiency of the public service while stagnation reduces efficiency and makes the service ineffective. Promotion is thus a normal incidence of service. There too is no justification why while similarly placed officers in other ministries would have the benefit of promotion, the non-medical „A‟ Group scientists in the establishment of Director General of 4 Health Services would be deprived of such advantage. In a welfare State, it is necessary that there should be an efficient public service and, therefore, it should have been the obligation of the Ministry of Health to attend to the representations of the Council and its members and provide promotional avenue for this category of officers. It is, therefore, necessary that on the model of rules framed by the Ministry of Science and Technology with such alterations as may be necessary, appropriate rules should be framed within four months from now providing promotional avenue for the „A‟ category scientists in the non- medical wing of the Directorate.” The Court holds that the respondents are constitutionally bound to provide avenues for promotion to Laboratory Assistant as otherwise it amounts to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution by compelling the employee to stagnate and rot on the single post denying him the opportunity to enhance his service career and prospect including status and monetary benefits. The impugned order dated 5.3.2010 is set aside. Mandamus is issued to the respondents to consider granting of promotional avenues to the post of Laboratory Assistant in light of the observations of the Supreme Court as quoted above. Let such exercise be carried out within a 5 maximum period of five months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands allowed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)