IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1669 of 2009 Narmadeshwar Mishra . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . ----------- 3. 11.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None for the State. The writ petition was filed after serving two copies in the office of the Advocate General on 6.1.2009. The second copy was to facilitate the respondents in assisting this Court for quick and timely dispensation of justice by filing a counter affidavit. Despite the passage of more than two and a half years and that the writ petition has been listed on an earlier occasion also, the respondents have not considered it their duty to assist the Court for dispensation of justice by filing a counter affidavit. The Court is satisfied that to adjourn the writ application today by granting further latitude to the respondents may amount to denial for quick access to justice by the petitioner. The Court therefore not consider it necessary to adjourn the matter. The petitioner is stated to have superannuated on 30.6.1986 from the post of Deputy Inspector of School. He held officiating charge of S.D.E.O. and Principal training college, a post belonging to the Bihar Education Service Class-II. However, he was not given promotion on the pay scale of that post. 2 It appears that the Subordinate Education Service Unit of which the petitioner was also a member moved this Court after his superannuation in C.W.J.C. No. 1596 of 1989 followed by other writ applications in the year 1998 and 2000 when relief is alleged to have been given to similarly situated persons including those junior to the petitioner as alleged in the writ application. Perhaps, if the respondents had filed a counter affidavit and assisted the Court, the litigation may have been brought to an end today either ways. Only for the reason for failure to file a counter affidavit, the controversy shall continue the credit for which shall go to the respondents alone. If as alleged, persons situated alike the petitioner, and who have superannuated prior to the Subordinate Education Service Unit having filed C.W.J.C. No. 1596 of 1989, have been given the benefit of promotion and are also allegedly junior to the petitioner, non- consideration of his case may invite applicability of Article 14 of the Constitution of India raising issues of arbitrary discrimination. If those who have been granted the benefit of promotion have a cause of action after the writ petition of 1989, the case of the petitioner shall stand isolated by reason of delay when his claim may not require 3 consideration. Counsel for the petitioner invites the attention of the Court to a letter dated 21.3.2007 issued by the Deputy Director (Primary)-cum-Deputy Secretary of the Human Resources Development Department and submits that it mentions only one ground to deny the promotion to the petitioner. It states that the petitioner belonged to the inspection branch and was therefore not entitled to the promotion. It is submitted that the petitioner belonged to the teaching branch throughout. The ground is erroneous. The Court grants liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before the Deputy Director (Primary)-cum- Deputy Secretary in context of the claim more particularly the order dated 21.3.2007 also. The respondents shall then grant a personal hearing to the petitioner and make available to him all such documents on which the respondents propose to rely for denying relief to the petitioner. The petitioner shall then be given an opportunity to meet the same. This is absolutely necessary in view of the fact that the controversy remains completely unresolved before the Court because of the failure of the respondents to file counter affidavit. In the aforesaid manner, let the State respondent then consider the claims and dispose it off by a reasoned 4 and speaking order within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before him. If the State respondent finds justification in the claim or in any part of the claim, it is expected that necessary consequential orders, if any shall be passed simultaneously. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)