IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14924 of 2005 SRI KRISHNA MURARI SINGH S/O LATE BADRI SINGH, R/O MOHALLA RAGHUNATH TOLA ANISABAD, PS-GARDANI -BAGH, DISTT- PATNA-------------PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECY.. RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE SECY. RERAL DEVELOPMENT DEPTT. (RURAL ENGINEERING ORGANISATION, PANCHAYATI RAJ) GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF, RURAL ENGINEERING ORGANISATION RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BIHAR,PATNA 4. CHIEF ENGINEER RURAL ENGINEERING ORGANISATION (1) RURAL DEVELOPMENT, BIHAR, PATNA 5. CHIEF ENGINEER RURAL ENGINEERING ORGANISATION (2) RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA---------- ----------------------------RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2 17.9.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Annexure-2 is the order passed by the High Court when the petitioner approached the Court earlier. His claim is that the private respondent in that writ application was junior to him in service but he ended up with higher pay scale because he was granted promotion to the post of routine clerk whereas the petitioner entered in service earlier and thereafter got promotion to a class III as a Record Supplier. The reason for him getting aggrieved is because the routine clerk carries a higher pay scale than Record Supplier i.e. the class III post. The High Court while taking note of such an anomaly remitted the matter to the Secretary of the Department concerned and now a decision has been rendered which is annexure-1 to the writ application and the same is under challenge. The respondent through speaking order (Aannexure-1) has rejected the claim of the petitioner taking note of his service record. They indicated the reason and the circumstances in the counter - 2 - affidavit under which said Mogul Prasad came to be granted benefit of the post of routine clerk and the reason why the petitioner could not be given the post. It is evident from reading of the speaking order that Mogul Prasad came to be posted in the Building Construction Department for a while and a post of routine clerk was vacant therein where he came to be accommodated. The petitioner continued to work with his parent department and there was no post of routine clerk available in the department. Since the post of Record Supplier was available the petitioner got accommodated in the said post. Petitioner has no right to be appointed on the post of routine clerk when no such post exists. However otherwise the petitioner was promoted on class III post as there was no vacant post of routine clerk against which he can be accommodated, more so he retired from service on 30.6.2003. Benefit to respondent no.7 in the earlier writ application is a circumstance which has accrued in his favour whereas the similar opportunity was not available for the petitioner within the department and this is the reason why his case cannot be considered for promotion to the post of routine clerk. It cannot be said that the respondents have intentionally rejected the claim of the petitioner because they are detrimental to the claim of the petitioner. They have done no wrong. No case is made out to interfere with the impugned order. This writ application is dismissed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)