IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7949 of 2009 JAGDISH PRASAD CHAUBEY, son of Late-Suraj Nath Chaubey, resident of New Area Bazar, Arrah, Police Station-Arrah, District-Bhojpur at Arrah. …….Petitioner Versus 1. The Bihar State Cooperative Land Development Bank Limited, Budha Marg, Patna through its Chairman. 2. The Chairman, Bihar State Cooperative Land Development Bank Limited, Budh Marg, Patna. 3. The Managing Director, Bihar State Cooperative Land Development Bank Limited, Budh Marg, Patna. 4. The Secretary, Bihar State Cooperative Land Development Bank Limited, Budh Marg, Patna. ……..Respondents. ----------- 02. 14.07.2009 Heard the parties. The petitioner was a Stenographer in Bihar State Cooperative Land Development Bank Limited. He retired in the year 2003. After retirement he filed writ petition in this Court claiming that he was employed in 1972. State Government took a decision to grant first and second time bound promotion on completion of ten years and fifteen years of service. The said decision was applicable to the employees of the said Bank as well. He submitted that he was denied the said promotion. This Court without giving any finding directed the Respondent Bank to reconsider the matter and pass orders in accordance with law. Petitioner states that he filed representation accordingly which has been rejected on the ground that the financial condition of the Bank does not 2 permit granting promotion. Learned counsel has referred to Annexure-8 for the said purpose. Petitioner claims that in view of the State Government decision he was entitled to the First Time Bound Promotion with effect from 1983 and the Second Time Bound Promotion with effect from 1998. He submits that denial of the same is entirely unjust and arbitrary. Having heard the parties. I am not impressed with the arguments. The order as referred to by the petitioner as contained in Anexure-8 clearly shows that petitioner was considered for promotion but promotion was denied because of the note “Sri. Choubey is one of the worst staff of the Bank and does not deserve any promotion at all”. It is not that he was never considered for promotion, he was considered and found to be unfit. In such a situation, petitioner could not be entitled to either the first or the second time bound promotion. The State Government took a decision to provide time bound promotion to its employees along with recommendations of the 3rd Pay Commission. The object of providing for the first and the second time bound promotion was that in many caders there was stagnation. The employees who were qualified to be promoted could not be promoted because of lack of post on promotional avenue. This led to stagnation. To overcome this stagnation which 3 is counter productive so far as efficiency is concerned, time bound promotion was envisaged. The pre-condition is that the person must be qualified and fit to be promoted and there are no promotional avenues available. In the present case, it would be seen that the petitioner was considered for promotion as promotion was due but he was found to be the worst staff of the Bank and accordingly unfit for promotion, his case can not be then considered for time bound promotion. The writ application is accordingly dismissed. Shageer (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J)