IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12494 of 2007 Ram Prit Choudhary, S/o late Sahdeo Choudhary of Village Bijhoura, P.O. Kukurha, P.S. Itarhi, Dist. Buxar. --------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The District Magistrate, Buxar, At, P.O. and Dist. Buxar. 3. The District Superintendent of Education, Buxar. At, P.O. and Dist. Buxar. -------- Respondents ----------- 2 14.11.2011 Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into account that the grievance of the petitioner for grant of time bound promotion has already been redressed way back in the year 1992 giving him such benefit with effect from 1.4.1987, this Court would hold the present writ application to be wholly misconceived if the petitioner’s grievance is only for grant of first time bound promotion. As a matter of fact, the petitioner has suppressed this fact that he has already been granted such first time bound promotion with effect from 1.4.1987 and in fact, these facts have come to the notice of this Court only from the counter affidavit. In the changed circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner’s effective date of first time bound promotion should not have 2 been 1.4.1987 but 2.6.1986, inasmuch as, the appointment of the petitioner on the post of teacher was made on 2.6.1976. Such a belated prayer of the petitioner cannot be entertained, inasmuch as, first of all, the correction in the date of first time bound promotion, if at all this is the purport of this writ application, cannot be entertained after fifteen years of cause of action keeping in view that the petitioner was already given such first time bound promotion in the year 1992 vide Annexure-D to the counter affidavit, the office order no. 3657 dated 13.11.1992. If the petitioner could remain satisfied with such date of first time bound promotion for a period of nearly fifteen years, he cannot now be allowed to raise this question after he has almost completed his service. Additionally, this Court would find that the respondents were wholly justified in notifying the first time bound promotion of the petitioner with effect from 1.4.1987, inasmuch as, the first engagement of the petitioner was made on stipend basis and the period of stipendiary service cannot be counted for the purpose of time bound 3 promotion. The Government circular introducing time bound promotion dated 30.12.1981 very clearly lays down the manner of computation of the period of ten years for making a person entitled to get time bound promotion which is only from the date one was given a regular pay-scale and the post. In the case of the petitioner, such date is 1.4.1977 and, therefore, the petitioner could not have been given his first time bound promotion on any date prior to 1.4.1987. In any event, the unexplained delay of almost twenty years in moving this Court by itself would be fatal. For all these reasons, this Court would not find no merit in this writ application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)