IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12967 of 2006 SAHDEO RAI, son of late Ram Gulam Rai, resident of village Kanu Bishunpur, P.O. Imas Nagar, P.S. Khanpur, District Samastipur. Versus 1. L.N.MITHILA UNIVERSITY, Darbhanga through its Registrar. 2. The Vice Chancellor, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga. 3. The Registrar, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga. 4. The Principal, Samastipur College, Samastipur. ----------- 2 15.9.2010 Having heard counsel for the petitioner as also counsel for the respondent, this Court is satisfied that the relief in paragraph no.1 of the writ application reading as follows:- “That this application is being filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to promote the petitioner in Class III cadre of Lab Incharge from appropriate date considering the fact that as his junior Lab Incharge has been promoted to Class III (Lab-in-Charge) whereas he has been denied promotion without assigning any reason and further for issuance of any other appropriate writ/ order/ direction to give consequential benefits to the petitioner for which the petitioner is found entitled to in the facts and circumstances stated hereinafter.” is not admissible, inasmuch as, a writ of mandamus can be issued only when there has been a legal right vested in a person and a demand has been made for also enforcing his such legal right. The petitioner claims to be working on the post of Laboratory Boy in Samastipur College Samastipur since 24.9.1996 and it is said that he had passed matriculation examination in 1992. In 1997 he had filed a representation for promotion on the post of Compounder. This Court fails to understand as to how the post of Compounder could be available for the petitioner by way of promotion only because he became a matriculate in the year 2 1992. Counsel for the petitioner next contended that one Rajdeo Rai, junior to the petitioner who was appointed some time in 1979 as a Laboratory boy in the department of Zoology, was promoted to the post of Laboratory Incharge (iz;ksx”kyk izHkkjh) on 13.12.2000. Counsel, therefore, submitted that once junior to the petitioner was given promotion on the post of Laboratory Incharge the petitioner was also entitled for such promotion. The difficulty of this Court in accepting the submission is in two folds. The post of Laboratory Incharge in the department of Zoology is one which could be filled up from the persons who were working as a Laboratory Boy in the department of Zoology. Merely because the vacancy on the post of Laboratory Incharge in the department of Zoology was filled up by promoting Rajdeo Rai, Laboratory boy of that very department, would not mean that there was also vacancy on the post of Laboratory Incharge in the department of Physics where the petitioner is working as a Lab. Boy. The cadre of promotion therefore for each of the department cannot be equated and in any event there is no averment in the writ application that despite there being vacancy of the Laboratory Incharge in the department of Physics the petitioner’s case for promotion was not considered. Here this Court must also note that the petitioner had consciously had asked for promotion on 21.1.1997 not on the post 3 of Laboratory Incharge but on the post of Compounder. That by itself would be indicative of the fact that there was no vacancy on the post of Laboratory Incharge in the College and each of the College being a unit for promotion from Class-IV to Class III post, this Court would find it difficult to sustain claim of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Laboratory Incharge in the department of Physics especially when the petitioner has not even claimed such promotion on the post of laboratory incharge nor has impleaded the said Rajdeo Rai as a respondent for establishing the plea of discrimination. The other difficulty for the petitioner in getting a direction is that he has admittedly not filed any representation after 21.1.1997 as has been admitted and conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner in course of his submissions. Thus, if there was a cause of action for the petitioner on or after 13.12.2000 when his alleged junior Rajdeo Rai was given promotion on the post of Laboratory Incharge and yet he did not choose to raise his such demand before the competent authority, this Court would find it difficult to sustain his prayer in this writ application seeking a writ of mandamus for commanding the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for his promotion on the post of Laboratory Incharge. That being so, there is no merit in this application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)