IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9564 of 2007 NAVIN KUMAR SHARMA S/O Late Pramod Kumar Sharma, resident of New Area, P.O. Dalmianagar, District-Rohtas, at present posted as V.L.W. Tarari Block, District-Bhojpur. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.Secretary-Cum-Commissioner, Rural Development, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3.Secretary-Cum-Commissioner, Department of Agriculture, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4.District Magistrate, Bhojpur. 5.Additional Collector (Establishment) Bhojpur, Ara. 6.Rajendra Kumar Ojha S/O Ram Vyas Ojha, Resident of Village-Deokuli, P.S.-Kakaria, District- Bhojpur. ----------- 2 20/7/2009 Learned counsel for the petitioner at the out set would seek permission to make necessary correction in Annexure-3 to the writ application. He is permitted to do so. Heard Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Kumar Alok, learned counsel for the State. In this writ application prayer of the petitioner reads as follows:- “That this application is directed for quashing and setting aside the adhoc promotion vide Memo No.5075 dated 1.11.2004 to the post of Block Agriculture Officer/Agriculture Inspector.” Though the aforementioned prayer has been made by the petitioner for quashing the entire order of promotion dated 2 1.11.2004, counsel for the petitioner would submit that he would be satisfied if case of the petitioner for his promotion on the post of Block Agriculture Officer/Agriculture Inspector is considered alike others who have been promoted by order dated 1.11.2004. Counsel for the petitioner in this context would draw attention of this Court to the fact that his name in the panel of Jan-Sevak amongst agriculture graduates was at Serial No.29 and if his appointment was made on 30.5.1995 whereas, persons 19 below him in the panel were appointed earlier, i.e, in the year 1990-91 he should not be made to suffer in his further promotion on the higher post. He would, therefore, submit that when large number of persons including respondent no.6 was considered for promotion on the higher post, the respondents ought to have also considered the case of petitioner as well and should have given him the same benefit of provisional promotion as was given to two others including respondent no.6. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, would submit that there would be difficulty in considering the case of the petitioner as there is no recommendation by the concerned Collector, the appointing authority on the post of Jan-Sevak, and as such case of the petitioner for promotion could not be considered. In the opinion of this Court consideration for promotion cannot depend on the recommendation of the controlling authority. If the petitioner had already completed eight 3 years period of service on 30.5.2003 and if respondents were considering promotion even provisionally, the case of the petitioner had to be considered and if there was no recommendation in favour of the petitioner the respondent- Director Agriculture was duty bound to call for such recommendation. The petitioner could have been deprived from such promotion only if the controlling authority, Collector of the district, had given adverse report. That, however, is not the case here. In that view of the matter, this Court would direct the petitioner to file a self contained representation including documents of his claim for promotion and the Director Agriculture would examine the case of the petitioner. If the Director Agriculture would need recommendation of the concerned Collector, he would make necessary communication with the said Collector so that final order with regard to promotion of the petitioner alike others who was given such promotion with effect from 1.11.2004 is decided within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It goes without saying that if the petitioner is refused such promotion on any ground whatsoever the respondents will be required to record reasons. On the other hand, if the petitioner is found fit for promotion he will be given promotion from the same date on which his juniors has been given such promotion and would be also entitled for the same financial benefit which has 4 been given to his juniors. With the aforementioned observations/directions this application is disposed of. Abhay Kumar (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)