IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7071 of 2002 1. SHEO KUMAR SINGH son of late Chandrika Singh resident of village Koini PS and Dist. Gopalganj 2. Prem Kumar son of Sri Ganesh Singh resident of Mohalla Chailital PS Alamganj, Dist. Patna 3. Anand Kishore Jha son of late Ram Chandra Jha resident of village Pipraun PS Haralakhi Dist. Madhubani 4. Pitambar Jha son of late Pusp Lal Jha resident of village Pindaruch PS Pindaruch Dist. Darbhanga Versus 1. Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. through its Managing Director 5th floor Sone Bhawan, Bir Chand Patel Marg Patna-1 2. Chief Administration, Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. through its Managing Director 5th floor Sone Bhawan, Bir Chand Patel Marg Patna-1 3. Chief Finance, Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. through its Managing Director 5th floor Sone Bhawan, Bir Chand Patel Marg Patna-1 4. Sri Vivekanand Das son of not known to the petitioners presently posted as Hazaribagh 5. Sri Ashok Kumar Gupta son of not known to the petitioners presently posted at Muzaffarpur 6. Sri Bijay Kumar Pathak son of not known to the petitioners presently posted at Vaishali 7. Sri Nand Gopal Prasad son of not known to the petitioners presently posted at Giridih 8. Sri Brij Kishore Pd. Sinha son of not known to the petitioners presently posted at Nawadah 9. Sri Md. Mustaqueen son of not known to the petitioners presently posted at Palamu 10. Sri Nawratan Pd. Sinha son of not known to the petitioners presently posted at Samastipur 11. Sri Rajendra Pd. Singh son of not known to the petitioners presently posted at Gopalganj 13. Sri Ramashish Chaudhary son of not known to the petitioners presently posted at Samastipur 14. Sri Kameshwar Pd. Roy son of not known to the petitioners presently posted at Dumka 15. Sri Rambali Singh son of not known to the petitioners presently posted at Gaya 16. Sri Suresh Kumar Mallah son of not known to the petitioners presently posted at Sitamarhi In the department of Bihar State Food and Supplies Corporation ----------- 10 12-02-2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation and its officials. - 2 - Four petitioners preferred this writ petition in the year 2002 raising a grievance that on account of policy decision contained in office order dated 23-5-2002 (annexure-1) the respondent Corporation has decided to adjust as many as 18 Laboratory Incharge on the post of Assistant Account Officer grade-II thus affecting the prospects of promotion of employees like the petitioners who are in the Accounts department and entitled to be considered for promotion to those posts. Petitioners have also raised the grievance that they were illegally superceded by their juniors in matters of promotion in the past. Learned counsel for the respondent Corporation submits that the Corporation has denied that petitioners were earlier superceded without any valid reasons. However, in reply to the grievance of the petitioners that the impugned decision affects the promotional prospects of petitioners, no satisfactory explanation could be given as to why the 18 Laboratory Incharge are not being adjusted in the 50% quota meant for direct recruits for the post of Assistant Account Officer and why instead they are being counted as promotees when they do not have the requisite qualification of working in the Accounts department for being considered for promotion. It is clear from annexure-5 dated 27-9-1977 that 40 posts of Assistant Account Officers were created by the Corporation and as per resolution of the Corporation dated 10-6-1980 contained in annexure-7, 50% of the said posts were to be filled up from out of Accountants and rest 50% were to be filled up by direct recruitment. Had there been no provision for direct recruitment, then the - 3 - submission on behalf of the Corporation that impugned decision is within their competence on account of extra ordinary situation to save the services of 18 Laboratory Incharge due to abolition of their posts, could have been considered favourably but when posts for direct recruitment are earmarked then the stand of the Corporation that the adjustment of Laboratory Incharge shall be in the quota of promotees does not meet the test of reasonableness. Such stand will not only affect the promotional avenue of the Accountants but shall also cause demoralization and stagnation. In that view of the matter while approving the policy decision contained in annexure-1 to adjust 18 Laboratory Incharge on the post of Assistant Account Officer, this court directs the respondent Corporation to count those 18 posts in the quota meant for direct recruits and not in the quota for promotees. Nothing more survives for adjudication in this matter because so far as claim for individual promotion is concerned, learned counsel for the Corporation has informed to this court that petitioner no.1 has already been dismissed from service and petitioner no.4 has superannuated. The only relief that petitioners can get in respect of their grievance relating to denial of promotion is by way of direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners and other eligible persons for promotion in accordance with law as soon as the next exercise for promotion is taken up. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. BKS/ (Shiva Kirti Singh,J.)