IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15741 of 2005 SURESH PRASAD SINGH Versus MUZAFFARPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS ----------- 5 26.08.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The genesis of the present litigation is a decision dated 20.02.2002 (Annexure – F to the counter affidavit). Vide this notification, one Mr. Raj Kumar Trivedi, respondent no. 3 to the present writ application was appointed on the post of Office Superintendent by the respondent’s Muzaffarpur Nagar Nigam. Based on this notification the private respondent worked on the said post and has retired in 2004. The said decision is now sought to be challenged in the present writ application filed only on 21.12.2005. In the given situation, therefore, there may not be any occasion for this Court to get into the root of the matter and the promotion order passed in favour of the private respondent no. 3 now as the same would be academic. The petitioner does not dispute the above noted position but he has tried to explain the delay in challenging the order granting promotion passed way back on 20th February 2002. The submission is that he was trying to gather all the materials to strengthen his case but that may not 2 be good enough ground for the court now to adjudicate on a promotion granted to the private respondents when he already stands superannuated from the post in the year 2004, no relief therefore, under this head can be granted to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner submits that he has a case for consideration for promotion to the post of Office Superintendent now after vacation of office by the private respondents. The matter ought to be given consideration in this regard. The respondents, however, in their counter affidavit have stated that the case of the present petitioner with other eligible employees, for the promotion was taken up in the year 2006 itself and an order in this regard was passed based on a decision dated 23.08.2006. The above decision has been brought on record as Annexure – G to the counter affidavit. The respondents have indicated that the present petitioner was found ineligible for the reasons that he had been found guilty of certain charges of misconduct and departmental inquiry has been going on against him. If this is the present position, then there is no occasion for this Court to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner afresh at this juncture. The writ application is totally misplaced and it is 3 dismissed, accordingly. Rajeev/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)