IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1763 of 2009 Birendra Kumar Shukla . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . ----------- 2. 08.07.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner is stated to be an Additional District Public Relation Officer. He desires to be considered for the post of Assistant Director cum District Public Relation Officer stated to be the next promotional post. The further grievance is that he is discharging the duties of an Assistant Director cum District Public Relation Officer since 14.9.1998 while holding the substantive post of Additional District Public Relation Officer and therefore is entitled to the difference of salary for the former post also. It is lastly submitted that there is a quota fixed for such promotional post. Counsel for the State submits that the two posts constitute separate cadres. Unless the Promotion Rules are framed, which is under process, consideration for promotion cannot be done. It is denied by the respondents that the petitioner was discharging duties of Assistant Director cum District Public Relation Officer. The petitioner had moved this Court earlier in CWJC No. 16021 of 2005 disposed on 28.4.2008 seeking a limited relief for disposal of his representation only to be considered for promotion. His representation dated 3.6.2008 is also on record. An order dated 4.7.2008 referring to the pendency of the framing of Rules has been passed in pursuance thereof. In the earlier writ petition and the consequent representation the petitioner appears to have raised a claim for consideration for promotion only. He did not raise any issue that he was discharging duties on a higher post and was therefore 2 entitled to salary for the same. If he was assigned duties of the higher post on 14.9.1998, as alleged by him, the cause of action was clearly available to him, not only in 2005 when he filed the earlier writ petition but also when it was disposed and he represented in 2008. If the petitioner did not raise and press the issue at that time he has lot to answer on the principles of constructive resjudicata. He cannot be permitted to wake up in fits and starts to file writ petitions at his convenience vexing the respondents. The respondents in their counter affidavit have denied that the petitioner was discharging duties as Assistant Director cum District Public Relation Officer. Neither of the parties has brought materials on record whether a superior officer was posted on that post or not. That takes the whole question into the arena of disputed facts. Nonetheless, the Court takes notice of the fact that the petitioner is working since 9.12.1994 on the post of Additional District Public Relation Officer. Every person who joins government service builds up his career on the premise of improvement in his status and monetary position aspiring for promotion. This is what motivates the employee to give his best to the establishment. The Courts have frowned upon services where there are no promotional avenue. It directly affects the morale of the employee. An employee with a poor morale is hardly expected to give his best to the institution. As a result, he sits in the office, draws salary, does not work or works much below his efficiency level. The government interest suffers and ultimately it is the public which suffers. The law noticed in this regard at (1989) 4 SCC 635 (Council of Scientific and Industrial Research Vs K.G.S.Bhatt) at paragraph 9 has been stated as follows:- 3 “9…. He was however, left without opportunity for promotion for about twenty years. This is indeed a sad commentary on the appellant’s management. It is often said and indeed, adroitly, an organization public or private does not “hire a hand” but engages or employs a whole man. The person is recruited by an organisation not just for a job, but for a whole career. One must, therefore, be given an opportunity to advance. This is the oldest and most important feature of the free enterprise system. The opportunity for advancement is a requirement for progress of any organization. It is an incentive for personnel development as well. Every management must provide realistic opportunities for promising employees to move upward. “The organization that fails to develop a satisfactory procedure for promotion is bound to pay a severe penalty in terms of administrative costs, misallocation of personnel, low morale, and ineffectual performance, among both non- managerial employees and their supervisors.” There cannot be any modern management much less any career planning, manpower development, management development etc. which is not related to a system of promotions.” The respondents are bound to create promotional avenues. Their stand in the order dated 4.7.2008 that they were in the process of doing the same from 2008 is a defence which the Court rejects. A mandamus is issued to frame the necessary Rules within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt and/or presentation of a copy of this order. Considering that the issue has been engaging the mind of the respondents since the year 2008 the Court considers the time period given as sufficient. The writ application stands disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)