IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8694 of 2010 1. Suresh Choudhary S/O Late Kashi Mahtha R/O Rajgir, P.S.- Rajgir, Distt.- Nalanda Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Chief Secretary, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 3. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Human Resources Development, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 4. The Director (Administration) Cum Additional Secretary, Department Of Human Resources Development, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 5. Sri Deosheel S/O Not Known At Present Posted As Regional Deputy Director Of Education, Magadh Division, Gaya 6. Sri Md. Tasnimmur Rahman S/O Not Known At Present Posted As Regional Deputy Director Of Education, Munger Division, Munger 7. Sri Jai Chand Prasad Shrivastawa S/O Now Known At Present Posted As Regional Deputy Director Of Education, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga 8. Sri Niwas Chandra Tiwary S/O Not Known At Present Posted As Regional Deputy Director Of Education, Saran Division, Saran At Chapra ---------------------------------- 3. 19.10.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State. The institution of the writ application on 14.5.2010 after serving two copies in the office of the Advocate General on 6.5.2010 has been considered insufficient by the Department of Human Resources to even file a counter affidavit for assisting this Court in dispensation of justice. The specific adjournment granted for the purpose on 28.3.2011 has also evoked no response. The Court is not persuaded to grant any further adjournment in the matter. I.A. No. 6564 of 2011 has been filed bringing on record the subsequent developments during pendency of the writ application when the grievance now is with regard to the promotion of juniors on the post of District Education Officer in contradistinction to the earlier 2 grievance for promotion of juniors to the post of Regional Deputy Director of Education . Having heard Counsel for the parties the Court is satisfied that the I.A. application deserves to be allowed. It is accordingly ordered. The original grievance was that Respondents 5 to 8, his juniors, have been considered and promoted as Regional Deputy Director of Education while the petitioner was being assigned the post of District Education Officer. His further case was that he had been given junior selection grade and the promotion to the Bihar Education Service Grade I cadre before Respondents 5 to 8. The Regional Deputy Director of Education was the controlling authority of the District Education Officer and therefore the petitioner would be subjected to undue humiliation by being forced to work under his juniors and to be under their disciplinary control. The I.A. application states that the promotions given have subsequently been restructured and by a notification dated 17.6.2011 the juniors have been assigned the duties as District Education Officer while the petitioner has been relegated to the status of District Programme Officer at the same place where he had earlier discharged duties as District Education Officer. Even after shifting of the date for grant of junior selection grade, the petitioner still remains senior to private respondents 5 to 8. The District Education Officer above him has not even been granted junior selection grade. It is his further grievance that even reservation roster for the purpose of promotion has not been followed. Had the respondents filed a counter affidavit the grievance of the petitioner could have been examined, considered and decided by the Court. The grievance may have been justified or unjustified. If the respondents had assisted the Court by filing a counter affidavit even in 3 the event that the petitioner did not get relief, from the discussion that may have followed he may have had the satisfaction that his perception of the grievance was not correct. If he was aggrieved he could have carried the matter in appeal. The controversy could have been given a finality by the Court. A person in government service builds his career on the foundation of his promotional prospect and the emoluments that may follow. The denial of the right to be considered for promotion or a perceived approach that injustice had been done by granting promotion to the junior therefore have an important component inasmuch as it not only affects the morale of the government servant but ultimately affects the government works. An employee with a grievance, and unable to obtain proper consideration of his grievance can hardly be expected to give his best to the organisation. The petitioner claims to have represented before the authorities. They do not answer his representation. When he approaches this Court they fail to file a counter affidavit. The Court is left with no option but to direct the Principal Secretary, Department of Human Resources to grant a personal hearing to the petitioner. He shall be explained the circumstances under which promotions have been given to persons who he alleges are junior to him. The explanation given by the petitioner shall be duly considered and appropriate reasoned orders shall be passed in his presence. The Court considers it proper to give the latter direction as there must be fairness and transparency in the order. The Court is satisfied that the requirement for passing the order presence of the petitioner shall adequately assure that all issues from both sides which arose for discussion shall have to find consideration in the order. 4 If the Principal Secretary be of the opinion that any order to be passed on the grievance of the petitioner may affect any of the private respondents 5 to 8 naturally he is required to hear them also and the present order shall not be considered as carte blanche to violate the principles of natural justice which no Court can order. Let the Principal Secretary pass an appropriate reasoned and speaking order in the aforesaid manner within a maximum period of eight weeks from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order before him unless the consideration be delayed for reasons attributable to the petitioner. The petitioner, if so advised, is permitted to supplement his representation. The writ application stands disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)