IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16235 of 2009 1. SHRI KRISHNA RAI S/O LATE NABI RAI, R/O VILL- ALAMPUR, P.S- BIBHUTIPUR, DISTT- SAMASTIPUR 2. BABULAL CHAUDHARY S/O LATE RAM JATAN CHAUDHARY, R/O VILL- BAHRAMPUR, P.S- DHANARUA, DISTT- PATNA 3. SHIV SHANKAR PRASAD, S/O LATE SHIVNANDAN PRASAD MANDAL, R/O VILL- GAUHARPUR, P.- DIDARGANJ, DISTT- PATNA 4. LALBODH CHAUDHARY S/O LATE DEO NARAYAN CHAUDHARY R/O VILL-BHARAMPUR, P.S- BHAIROWASTHAN, DISTT- PATNA 5. BUNDI PRASAD, S/O SRI SAUDAGAR MAHTO R/O VILL- HORIL BIGHA, P.S-NOORSARAI, DISTT- NALANDA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR, INDUSTRY DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 5. JOINT DIRECTOR, INDUSTRY DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 6. DEPUTY DIRECTOR INDUSTRY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA ----------- 2. 6.1.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners were appointed on a Class-IV post when they came to be promoted to a Class-III post by an order dated 27.10.1987. Years later on 10.1.2004, a show cause notice for reversion was issued that promotion had been granted in excess of vacancies and contrary to the roster. The petitioner replied claiming that he had been promoted after a proper selection process when the order of reversion followed on 18.3.2005 questioned in C.W.J.C. Nos. 6245 of 2005 and 4169 of 2005. The writ applications were 2 allowed with directions. In pursuance thereto six vacancies for promotion were identified and the petitioners have then been promoted. In the intervening contempt application preferred, this Court in M.J.C. No. 2450 of 2007, observed as follows:- “…… From paragraph 10 of the order, it appears that promotion has been given with effect from the date of the order, which counsel for the petitioners in the two contempt application states is contrary to the directions contained in orders dated 17.10.2005 and 7.3.2007 as the case of the petitioners for such promotion ought to have been considered with effect from the date of vacancy. I see substance in the submission made and permit the contempt petitioners to represent before the Director, Industries to relate back their promotion to the date on which the vacancy against which they have been promoted, arose. Such representation should be considered and disposed of as early as possible in any case within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.” (emphasis added) In pursuance thereof the impugned order dated 30.4.2009 has been passed denying them promotion from the date that the vacancy occurred on the ground that promotion could not be given retrospective effect as the orders for promotion had been passed in pursuance of the orders of this Court and the ensuing contempt proceedings but without the recommendation of the Bihar Staff Selection Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order is arbitrary and only requires post facto approval by the Bihar Staff Selection Commission. 3 Learned counsel for the State from the impugned order dated 30.4.2009 submits that the respondents have treated the present as a special case only because this Court has directed promotion. The stand of the State in the impugned order dated 30.4.2009 is unfortunate to say the least without having the fairness to assist the Court in proper disposal of matters and behaving like an adversarial litigant. The grounds stated in the impugned order dated 30.4.2009 are wholly unsustainable and arbitrary. If a procedural requirement was wanting, the onus lay upon the respondents to comply the same. The order dated 30.4.2009 is quashed. The respondents are directed to forward necessary recommendation to the Bihar Staff Selection Commission within a maximum period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order for post facto approval from the date that the vacancy has arisen, within six weeks of the date of receipt of such recommendation. The writ application stands allowed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)