IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2150 of 2010 1. MD.EJAJ AHMAD S/O MD. SAFFIRUDDIN R/O VILL CHAR HAZAR MANER, P.S.MANER, DISTT-PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SECRETARY CUM- COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR,PATNA 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE (EXCISE INVESTIGATION BUREAU) BIHAR,PATNA 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR,PATNA NEW SECRETARIAT BAILEY ROAD,PATNA with CWJC No.2201 of 2010 1. MD. RIZWN AHMAD S/O MALLICK BUDHAN ALIAS ZUBAIR R/O VILL.- SALIMPUR, P.S. KAKO (PALI), DISTT.- JAHANABAD Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SECRETARY CUM- COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE (EXCISE INVESTIGATION BEORO) BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA, NEW SECRETARIAT BAILY ROAD PATNA ----------- 2. 13.8.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The issues in both the writ applications are common. They raise a claim to be considered for promotion to the post of ASI Excise stated to be vacant since 1985. The petitioners are Constables in the Excise Department. It is their case that under Rule 45 of the Excise Manual, such promotions were required to be considered on an annual basis. This has not been done leading to the petitioners being denied consideration. As and when persons have approached this Court, the respondents have acted erratically in considering such 2 persons who obtained orders from the Court oblivious of their duties to consider persons for promotion in accordance with law which includes persons senior to them also. In some cases persons junior to the petitioners have been promoted in this manner. Reliance is placed on a judgment of this Court in 2006(2) PLJR 199 (Md. Zahir Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.). Counsel for the State does not dispute that this judgment has been affirmed by a Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 355 of 2006 as also by the Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Civil) 23005 of 2007. He however sought to draw a distinction that the petitioner therein had been considered for promotion before he reached the age of 50 years but could not be so promoted. The present petitioners not having been considered prior to the age of 50 years form a separate class and cannot be considered for promotion in view of the age bar of 50 years. This Court finds it difficult to accede to the contention of the State. There is no fundamental right to promotion, but there is a fundamental right to be considered for promotion. This necessarily entails a timely consideration. If the respondents were obliged to consider cases for promotion annually and the petitioners were not considered at the relevant point of time when they became eligible due to the fault of the respondents, 3 their constitution right has been violated. That certain others may have come to the Court would not be sufficient justification for the respondents to discriminate against those who may not have come to the Court to grant limited promotions. This Court would have expected that once the administrative deficiency was noticed by the respondents in pursuance of any order of the Court, more particularly when the matter had travelled at their behest unsuccessfully to the Supreme Court they would have woken up to the discharge their constitutional obligation as a Welfare State rather than engage and generate litigation by requiring individual orders. A judgment is an authority for what it logically decides in its entirety. A line or two torn out of context of a judgment cannot be urged that it were those lines that were decided in the judgment. A bare reading of the judgment in the case of Md. Zahir (supra) makes it apparent that the Court was considering the issue that promotions were not being considered in time leading to the candidates crossing the age bar of 50 years for promotion provided in the rules. The Court however noticed that the DPC itself had noticed hardship caused by such failure to timely consider cases for promotion and granted promotion to persons notwithstanding the 4 age bar of 50 years to undo the wrong done to them. In this context, the Court held that if the fault lies with the respondents in non-consideration of cases timely, the laches on part of the State officials cannot be sufficient justification to deny consideration at the age bar of 50 years. It is trite law that no person can take advantage of his own wrong much less the State which is a model employer. The petitioners are directed to be considered for such promotion from the date that their juniors may have been promoted relaxing the age bar of 50 years. Let such consideration be done and appropriate orders passed within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ applications stand allowed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)