IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11393 of 1994 Sheo Bhagat Rai, Son of Fouzdar Rai, Resident of Village Jamalpur, P.S. Nadano in the District of Patna. ------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Regional Deputy Education Director, Magadh Division, Gaya. 3. Ram Jatan Paswan, Son of not known, presently working as Regional Deputy Director of Education, Magadh Division, Gaya. 4. Anil Kumar Pandey, S/o not known, Assistant, C/o R.D.D.E., Magadh Division, Gaya. 5. Sahdeo Paswan, S/o not known, Assistant. 6. Mukhtiar, S/o not known, Assistant. 7. Satya Narayan Prasad, S/o not known, Assistant. 5 to 7, C/o R.D.D.E., Magadh Division, Gaya. 8. Shambhu Saran, S/o not known, Assistant with office of D.E.O. Aurangaad. ------- Respondents ----------- 15 11.8.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The prayer in this writ application is for quashing of a gradation list dated 26.11.1994 as also for considering the cases of promotion of the petitioner against the Class-III post of Clerk. This Court would find that in terms of the Government decision of the year 1985, the Class-IV employees working in any Muffasil Establishment, at best, are entitled to be considered against 25% of the vacancy in Class-III post by holding a limited departmental examination. The petitioner, therefore, cannot claim promotion on the basis 2 of seniority in the gradation list for filling up the Class-III post. In fact, this aspect of the matter has also been clarified in the counter affidavit wherein they have annexed a revised seniority list based on the date of entry in the cadre of Class-III & IV employee. Therefore, the first part of the prayer of the petitioner as with regard to the challenge to the gradation list must be taken to have been come to an end after issuance of a fresh gradation list as contained in Annexure-D to the counter affidavit. The second part of the grievance of the petitioner as with regard to his promotion on the basis that some of his juniors were promoted on the Class-III post is also untenable in view of a specific stand of the respondents in paragraph no.13 of the counter affidavit that only three class-IV employees were appointed by Annexure-3 and their date of appointment as Class-IV employee was in 1975- 76 while the appointment of the petitioner was made in December, 1977. In that context, it has been also clarified that the petitioner cannot claim his seniority from the year 1973 3 because his services had stood terminated from 15.6.1976 to 30.11.1977 and therefore, his seniority at best can be reckoned from 30.11.1977 only. This Court has accordingly considered all the aforesaid aspects of the matter and would find that the grievance of the petitioner for either of the two relief seems to be wholly misconceived. However if the petitioner would qualify for the Class-III post in terms of the Government decision dated 11.2.1985 by appearing and clearing the departmental examination (now being conducted by the Staff Selection Commission), he will definitely be entitled to be given his due for being considered and appointed as a Class-III employee. With the aforementioned observations and direction, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)