IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2290 of 2002 Baleshwar Sharma, Son of Shri Bindeshwar Sharma, Resident of Village Nimbigha, P.S. Belaganj, District Gaya, at present Vaccinator, Primary Health Centre, Imamganj, Gaya. --------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Secretary, Health Services, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Deputy Director, Health Services, Bihar, Patna. 5. The Addl. Director, Health Services, Bihar, Patna. 6. The Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Gaya. ---------- Respondents ----------- 8 05.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “1. That this is an application for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondents to grant promotion/post the petitioner on the post of Basic Health Worker with effect from the date the juniors to him have so been posted/promoted and after such promotion/posting to grant all consequential benefits i.e. seniority, salary etc.; and/or for issuance of a writ/order/direction for which the petitioner may be found legally entitled to under the facts and circumstances of the case 2 stated hereinunder.” As with regard to the aforementioned payer, the respondents have filed their counter affidavit wherein it has been explained that the petitioner’s earlier promotion was wholly without jurisdiction and that there was no promotional avenue for him to be promoted on the post of Basic Health Worker from the post of Vaccinator. In this context, paragraph nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 & 12 of the counter affidavit would go to show that the petitioner was never entitled for grant of promotion on the post of Basic Health Worker and in fact retired from service on 29.2.2004 during pendency of this writ application. Thus, when the aforementioned clear stand taken by the respondents in their counter affidavit has also not been denied in any manner by the counsel for the petitioner despite service of such copy on him on 30.4.2010, this Court has to hold that neither on merit nor even otherwise there would be any prospect for giving relief to the petitioner as prayed in this writ application. 3 That being so, this application, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)