IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9154 of 2002 1. SADHU SHARAN PANDIT son of Shri Guru Charan Pandit, resident of village and P. O. Gaighat, Police Station Andar at present working as Assistant Teacher, Govt. Girls Middle School, Andar. 2. Md. Alim Ansari son of Mahmaddin Ansari, resident of village Jamal Hatta, Police Station Hussainganj, at present working as Assistant Teacher (Incharge Head Master), Govt. of Middle School, Daronda. 3. Vakil Shahi son of Late Rammukh Shahi, resident of village Paterha, Police Station Maharajganj at present working as Head Master, Govt. of Middle School Bithuna, Block Bhagwanpur Hat All are in the district of Siwan. … Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 3. The District Education Establishment Committee Siwan through its Chairman, the District Magistrate, Siwan. 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Siwan. .. respondents. ----------- 4. 23.06.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. In this case the prayer of the petitioners reads as follows: “1. That this is an application for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus for commanding and directing the respondents authorities to promote the petitioner in B.Sc. Trained scale with effect from March 1983 ie. the date from which the vacancy is available and the petitioners were eligible for their promotion in B.Sc. trained scale and by issuing appropriate writ respondents authorities be further directed to give all consequential benefits of the service including the arrears of pay etc. of promoted post with effect from March, 1983 to the petitioners.” 2 Counsel for the petitioners would submit that such promotion to the petitioners is admissible because: (i) juniors to them have been promoted since 1983 and; ( ii) 28 posts of B.Sc. trained pay-scale are vacant. As with regard to the first issue namely the petitioners’ junior being promoted counsel for the petitioners relies on paragraph 16 of the writ petition which reads as follows; “16. That it is stated here that the respondents authorities have adopted a pick and choose policy and promoted several juniors in the pay scale of B.Sc. Trained scale but they have not considered the grievances/claims of promotion of the petitioner.” It is very clear from the aforementioned vague statement that the same cannot be looked into for any purpose inasmuch as none has been specially named who is said to be junior to the petitioners. The plea of discrimination especially when promotion is being claimed on the basis of junior’s promotion has to be specific. Counsel then would also revert to the averments 3 made in paragraph 3 of the supplementary affidavit which reads as follows:- “3. That it is stated and submitted that Mr. Lakshman Dubey, Mr. Shiv Bhachan Prasad and Mr. Shashi Bhushan Pandey who are also teachers in different elementary schools in the District of Siwan filed a writ petition before this Hon’ble Court for issuance of a direction for their promotion in the scale of B.Sc. trained teacher w.e.f. 1982 and 1983 because their juniors have been given promotion and there are still vacant post of B. Sc. Trained scale. After the order of the Hon’ble High Court, they were promoted in the B.Sc. trained scale w.e.f. 1982 or 1983 vide the Memo No. 289 dated 27th Sept. 1994 issued under the signature of the respondent District Superintendent of Education.” .. From the reading of the aforementioned statement also it is very much clear that the petitioners do not say anything about his juniors being promoted rather they claim that since juniors to Mr. Lakshman Dubey, Mr. Shiv Bhachan Prasad and Mr. Shashi Bhushan Pandey were promoted, their promotion would also enable the petitioners to claim promotion. The question is whether the petitioners are senior to Mr. Lakshman Dubey, Mr. Shiv Bhachan Prasad and Mr. Shashi Bhushan Pandey. No 4 such averment having been not made, this court cannot assume this in favour of the petitioners and accordingly the first plea of getting promotion of the petitioners on the basis of juniors being neither named nor impleaded in this writ petition cannot be looked into much less accepted. Learned counsel for the petitioners would next however contend that as a matter of fact though the prayer was made in this writ petition for grant of promotion to the petitioners in B.Sc. Trained pay-scale with effect from March 1983 but literally the petitioners wanted only shifting of date of promotion from 1.4.1991 to March 1983 and that is how the statements have been made in the writ petition with regard to others being given such promotion. In the opinion of this Court even this changed relief, though only orally, would not change the situation inasmuch as the date of promotion of the petitioners could have been shifted if they were in a position to establish that any juniors to them were given such promotion from earlier date. As noted above, there is no such averment in the writ petition and/or supplementary affidavit which can clinch this issue. The next plea of existing of vacancy would be no 5 ground for grant of such promotion to the petitioners with retrospective effect. It is well known that there is a difference between concept of regular promotion and time bound promotion. A time bound promotion has to be given from specified date on completion of the period. The regular promotion however would depend on many other circumstances and a claim thereof can not be made as a matter of right unless only junior has been given such regular promotion. That being so, this Court would not find any merit in this writ application and the same is accordingly dismissed. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)