IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4460 of 2008 DINESH PRASAD THAKUR, SON OF LATE PRATAP NARAYAN THAKUR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND P.O. BHITH BHAGWANPUR, P.S. MADHEPURA, DISTRICT MADHUBANI. ----- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH HOME SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 2. DIRECTOR GENERAL-CUM-INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 3. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF RAIL POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. RANGE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, PURNIA. 5. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ARARIA. 6. SUPERINTENDENT OF RAIL POLICE, JAMALPUR. ---- RESPONDENTS. ----------- 3 21.4.2011 The petitioner has challenged Annexure-11 by which he was granted promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector from 10.12.2004, i.e. the date on which the persons just junior to the petitioner were granted the said promotion. The petitioner was earlier promoted in the year 1994. Later he was reverted from the post of Sub- Inspector. All these matters with respect to promotion of the Sub-Inspectors were challenged in CWJC No. 2693 of 2005 wherein this Court has given specific directions in the manner the promotions should take place. It is an admitted fact that promotions to the post of Sub-Inspector are made by two modes. 50% of Sub-Inspectors come through direct recruitment and 50% of them are 2 promotees. After getting the entire list of the persons who were promoted to the post of Sub-Inspectors, this Court gave specific directions. The petitioner claims that he is senior to several persons who were appointed vide Annexure-5 issued on 10.12.2004. The Director General of Police has passed the order promoting the petitioner from the dates on which the juniors to the petitioner were promoted in accordance with the seniority list prepared in the year 2004. The petitioner is claiming on the basis of the seniority list prepared earlier which was set aside by this Court vide CWJC No. 55 of 1993. The petitioner according to the new duly prepared seniority list is at serial no. 922B. Thus, the promotions granted earlier, were granted to Serial No. 1 to 654 and as such the petitioner could not come within the zone of consideration. After pursuing the order contained in Annexure-11, I find that the petitioner has not been able to make out a case that he would be entitled to promotion in the year 1994 rather, this Court finds that in fact 3 the petitioner has rightly been granted promotion from 10.12.2004 i.e. the date on which persons junior to the petitioner were granted promotion. From the counter affidavit, it would be clear that the petitioner has also subsequently been granted his A.C.P. by order dated 9.4.2008. Thus all the grievances of the petitioner have been redressed by the State. In the result, I find no merit in this writ application and it is accordingly, dismissed. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)