IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11393 of 2004 JAY NANDAN KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 09. 11.02.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel, appearing for the State as well as the added Respondent No. 8. Petitioner has filed this application for a direction to the Respondents to consider his case for promotion from Class IV post to Class III. Petitioner’s case is that junior to the petitioner Shri Devendra Kumar Sinha (Respondent No. 8) has been granted promotion, but his claim was not considered by the Respondents. Devendra Kumar Sinha had not been impleaded as party, as such he filed an intervention application for being impleaded as Respondent in the application, which was allowed and he has been impleaded as Respondent No. 8. Different Counter Affidavits have been filed on behalf of the State as well as Respondent No. 8 and reply to the Counter Affidavits has been filed by the petitioner. In the Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of the State and private Respondent No. 8, this is specific case that petitioner can not claim to be promoted 2 from Class IV to Class III post, as he never participated in the limited examination held for promotion from Class IV post to Class III. This fact is also admitted by the petitioner that he has never appeared in the limited examination, held by the Department for promotion from Class IV post to Class III. Once it is admitted by the petitioner, he has no claim and no direction can be issued to the Respondents for promoting him from Class IV to Class III post. For promotion from Class IV to Class III post, it is mandatory that the employee concerned must participate in the limited examination, held for this purpose. Only on being successful, an employee holding Class IV post can be promoted to Class III post. The petitioner, in fact, has not filed this case for his promotion, rather he has come for negative relief. The negative relief prayed by the petitioner is that the promotion given to Respondent No. 8 should be cancelled as his certificate of Matriculation or equivalent degree, produced for his promotion was a forged document. From the Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of the State as well as the Respondent No. 8, it is made clear that for this charge, a Departmental Proceeding 3 has been held, charges were not proved and Respondent No. 8 was exonerated from the charge. Petitioner is also claiming that the Respondent No. 8 never appeared in the limited examination, but that has been denied by the State Respondents, as well as Respondent No. 8. Considering all these facts and circumstances, I do not find any merit in this application, hence, it is dismissed. SKM (Mridula Mishra, J.)