IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1491 of 2009 Janardan Prasad Sinha & Ors . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr. P.N.Pathak, Advocate For the State : SC 9 -------- 2. 07.07.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the State. On the objection of the learned State Counsel, leave is sought to implead the Secretary, Department of Finance, as Respondent no. 6. Let it be so done during course of the day. Since learned Counsel for the State also represents the newly added respondent who is a State functionary no separate notice need issue. The petitioners are stated to be Research Assistants in the Water Resources Department. The next promotional post for them is Assistant Research Officer. Their grievance is that consideration for promotion has unreasonably been kept pending since 1990 on pretext of non framing of the Promotion Rules. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that on 21.4.1990 the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department addressed a communication to various Departments including the Water Resources Department and Road Construction Department that it was in the process of formulating Rules with regard to appointment and promotion of Research Assistants and till then all cases for promotion of Research Assistants be put on hold. Subsequently on 8.11.1999 the Road Construction Department has framed Rules under Article 309 of the Constitution of India with regard to inter alia promotion of Research Assistants. Submission is that reading the two documents together there can be no valid justification for not applying the same rules to the petitioners in the Water Resources Department, with modification, if any, that may be required. The respondents in their counter affidavit, dealing with this assertion, simply state that it requires no comment. They were expected to take a clear stand in a proceeding before the Court and not to file an evasive reply. However the counter affidavit filed on their behalf drawing sustenance from the letter of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated 21.4.1990 states that several meetings have been held since 2002 – 2003 with the Finance Department for formation of Research Cadre Service Code under the Chairmanship of Water Resources Department. The counter affidavit stops at that. The Court is thoroughly disappointed of the manner in which the respondents appear to be discharging their duty to assist the Court in a claim by a citizen for justice. The law stands well settled that while promotion is not a fundamental right, right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right. The right to be considered for promotion necessarily entails a timely consideration. A person in service eagerly looks forward to be considered for promotion to the higher post not only for an improvement in his status in service but also for the monetary benefits that it brings. It is this promotion, the desire to achieve which, motivates the employee to give his best to the department. As a logical consequence the Department stands to benefit. Conversely an employee whose morale is low and is frustrated because of non consideration of his case for promotion as distinct from a case considered and rejected, when he may have remedy, not only the financial resources of the State is wasted but ultimately it is the people who suffer. A frustrated employee will not give his best to the job and duty. Reference may usefully be made to the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Council of Scientific and Industrial Research v. K.G.S. Bhatt, (1989) 4 SCC 635, at paragraph-9 as follows:- “9. ………….It is often said and indeed, adroitly, an organisation 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 organisation. It is an incentive for personnel development as well.1 Every management must provide realistic opportunities for promising employees to move upward. “The organisation 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.”2 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………” Directions are therefore given to the respondents in the Department of Finance and Department of Water Resources to ensure that not only are the Rules put in place but the case of the petitioners and other similarly situated are considered in accordance with law within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands allowed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)