IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2123 of 1996 SACHIDANAND SINGH Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 6 18.9.2008 The petitioner has challenged the order contained in Memo No. 2749 dated 24.10.1994 issued by the Director, Science and Technology, Government of Bihar by which the Director has recommended to revert the petitioner from Class III to Class IV post. The petitioner was given promotion by the letter of the Principal, Bhagalpur College of Engineering vide Letter No. 1626 dated 1.10.1994. The consequential order passed by the Principal is contained in Memo No. 1689 dated 27.10.1994 and the order dated 31.10.1994. The facts are that the petitioner was appointed on Class IV on 17.7.1961. He worked as a typist for a few months at a time and was finally put under suspension on 12.8.1975. The suspension of the petitioner was revoked on 14.10.1977. In the mean time, two persons namely Sri Ram Yash Prasad and Sri Vidya Prasad Mahto who were junior to the petitioner in the Class IV cadre were promoted as Clerk-cum- 2 Typist vide order dated 18.12.1976. The petitioner filed a representation before the Director-cum-Special Secretary, Science and Technology Department through the Principal of the College praying therein that he should be granted promotion to the post of Clerk as he was senior to the aforesaid two persons who were granted promotions. As a consequence of the Director’s letter, the petitioner was promoted on ad hoc basis on 31.1.1979 by the Principal of Bhagalpur College of Engineering. It transpired that there were no Class III post vacant and as such Principal of the College addressed a number of letters to the Director, Science and Technology requesting him to create a shadow post. It is the case of the petitioner that a vacancy arose and the petitioner was promoted with effect from 1.4.1983 vide annexure-13 of the writ application. The petitioner had also made a representation at that stage, for the reason that Ram Yash Prasad and Vidya Prasad Mahto were confirmed on the post of Clerk and thus the petitioner was ranked junior to them. He was claiming seniority over the two aforesaid 3 persons. On 18.12.1992 the petitioner received a letter contained in annexure-16 by which he was reverted to the Class IV post. The order dated 18.12.1992 was challenged by C.W.J.C. No. 491 of 1993. The matter was remanded to the authority to take a decision in the matter as it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that he was not granted promotion and persons junior to him were still working in Class III post. The petitioner was then issued a show cause with respect to certain issues vide Memo No. 625 dated 4.4.1994. It has been stated on behalf of the petitioner that he could not file a proper reply to the show cause and thus he was suspended on 6.9.1994 and the order was passed reverting him to Class III post. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was senior to Sri Ram Yash Prasad and Sri Vidya Prasad Mahto and as such he ought to have been considered for promotion to the post of a Clerk. It is further submitted that the Department ought to have kept a post vacant for the petitioner while 4 granting promotion and a great injustice has been done to the petitioner. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State in which it has been stated that the petitioner’s case for promotion was considered by the Promotion Committee and his case was rejected which would be apparent from annexures C and D. Annexures C and D are proceedings of the Promotion Committee dated 4.4.1978. The Committee has found that the petitioner was not fit for promotion and thus rejected his case for being granted promotion to Class III post. It may be noted here that the suspension order of the petitioner was revoked in 1977 and thereafter his case was taken up by the Promotion Committee for consideration and rejected and, therefore, the petitioner’s claim that he has been wrongly reverted to Class IV post is not justified. It has been clearly stated in the counter affidavit that as per Government Circular Letter No. 7260 dated 27.4.1990 the Government had put a ban on ad hoc appointments and it has been stated that the Principal had no authority to grant promotion to the petitioner. 5 In view of the stand of the State Government aforesaid this Court finds that the petitioner’s case for promotion was considered and rejected as far back as 1978 and the subsequent orders passed promoting him on ad hoc basis would not create a right in his favour, if he was not otherwise entitled to promotion. The writ application is thus dismissed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)