IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7351 of 2009 Hridaya Narayan Mishra . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . ----------- 2. 02.08.2011 A supplementary affidavit is stated to have been filed on behalf of the petitioner on 22.7.2011, copy of which has been served on the counsel for the State. The office shall trace it and place on record. The Court requested the counsel for the petitioner to make available his copy for perusal so as to not hold up the proceedings on that ground. The petitioner is stated to have superannuated on 30.6.2009 holding the post of Deputy Secretary in the Department of Water Resources (Minor Irrigation). It is his contention that in his service period on 14.5.2009, his case has been considered for promotion and recommended as apparent from the file notings annexed to the supplementary affidavit obtained by him under the R.T.I. Act. The matter was nonetheless kept pending and immediately after his superannuation his junior has been promoted. No counter affidavit has been filed despite a passage of over two years from the date of filing of the writ application after serving two copies in the office of the Advocate General. No useful purpose 2 shall be served by keeping the writ application pending. The petitioner has filed this writ application just prior to his superannuation. A file noting may not create a right in him to found a legal cause of action before a Court of law. But nonetheless if the file noting has been furnished to him under the Right to Information Act, fairness and reasonableness requires the respondents to consider the claims of the petitioner in light of their own noting contained in the file. That does not mean the recommendation must reach its culmination. What is important is the culmination of the decision making process contained in the file noting. The right to be considered for promotion necessarily entail a consideration in time otherwise it amounts to violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Now that the petitioner has retired, if the respondents find justification in the claim it naturally has to be a notional promotion only which may entail revision of pensionary benefits. Let the respondents consider the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law within a maximum period of three months from the date of 3 receipt/production of a copy of this order. Needless to state that if they find justification in the claim or in any part of the claim, necessary consequential order by revision of the pension payable including arrears shall be all complied with within the same period. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)