IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3842 of 2010 1. Tilak Sah S/O Late Sukhal Sah R/O Vill Bariyarpur,P.S.Dalauni,Distt-East Champaran Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary,Public Works Department Bihar,Patna 3. The Engineer -In-Chief-Cum-Special Secretary-Cum-Additional Commissioner ,Road Construction Department Govt.Of Bihar,Patna 4. The Chief Engineer ,National High Way Wing Govt.Of Bihar,Patna 5. The Superintending Engineer N.H.Circle ,Muzaffarpur 6. The Executive Engineer N.H.Division,Motihari 7. The Establishment Committee Of N.H.Circle Muzaffarpur,Represented Through The Superintending Engineer,N.H.Circle ,Muzaffarpur ----------- 3. 30.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders dated 1.6.2009 and 28.10.2009 reverting him to the post of Anusewak. It is submitted that the petitioner was promoted as a Correspondence Clerk on 7.8.2006. A show cause notice was issued to him on 29.9.2008 on the ground that promotion given to him from Class-IV to Class-III post against the 50% promotional vacancies was in excess of the quota meant for promotions. The first impugned order dated 1.6.2009 was passed at variance with the ground in the show cause notice holding that the promotion was given without concurrence of the Bihar Public Service Commission. He came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 7100 of 2009 relying on a 2 Government letter No. 1232 dated 4.12.2001 according to which 60% posts had been reserved for grant of promotion in light of seniority. The respondents have then passed the fresh order dated 28.10.2009 that the petitioner was to be considered for promotion against the limited competitive examination which has not been followed. It is submitted that a final order at variance with the grounds mentioned in the original show cause notice was not permissible in law. Counsel for the State sought to support the impugned orders from the counter affidavit but has not been able to persuade the Court to uphold the impugned orders which apparently on the very face of it are in teeth of the grounds mentioned in the show cause notice. The impugned orders dated 1.6.2009 and 28.10.2009 are accordingly held to be not sustainable and suffering from gross illegality in the decision making process but without prejudice to the rights of the respondents afrseh in accordance with law. The writ application is allowed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)