IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1698 of 2001 RAMDEO PRASAD Versus RAJENDRA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY & ORS ----------- 10/ 19/8/2008. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent University. The relief sought for in the present writ application is for quashing Annexure-15 dated 20.12.2000. It shifts the date of promotion to the post of Field Overseer of the petitioner from 21.5.1993 to 27.7.1989. This correction, shifting his date of promotion came to be passed in pursuance of L.P.A. No.1042/99 when by order dated 11.7.2000 this Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a representation. In the present writ application the contention of the petitioner is that he is entitled to such promotion from 1975, the date from which his juniors have been granted such promotion. This assertion is supported by names of the juniors at paragraph-24 of the writ application. Dealing with the same in an omnibus manner from paragraph-13 to 24 of the writ application a bald statement has been made in the counter affidavit that all these assertions are baseless and that the State acts according to Rules. At this stage all that needs to be noticed is that applying the principles of non-traverse of discrimination when his juniors had been granted promotion from 1975 and his claim was ignored stands admitted by the respondent University. The counter affidavit states that applications were invited from Laboratory Assistants for promotion to the post of Field Overseer. That it was possible that the petitioner may not have applied. If the petitioner had not 2 applied, obviously he was not eligible to be considered for promotion. If he was not eligible for promotion, the question of shifting his date of promotion on any representation by him when he never responded to the original advertisement obviously does not arise. This aspect has been conveniently ignored by the respondent university while passing Annexure-15. Paragraph-6 of the counter affidavit states that the petitioner has not mentioned the names of the juniors who had allegedly been appointed and promoted as Field Overseers. This Court has already noticed the pleadings in paragraph-24 of the writ application hereinabove. Noticing all of the aforesaid, this Court on 25.4.2008 had required the respondents to disclose the reason for fixing the date of promotion as 27.7.1989 in the background of a claim for promotion from 1975. In pursuance thereof a fresh order has been passed on 24.6.2008. It states (a) that the promotion is to be given from the date of issue of the promotion order (b) that eligible employees were given promotion with effect from 21.5.1993; (c) That one Shri Ramdeo Prasad Verma was granted promotion from 27.7.1989 and therefore the date of promotion of the petitioner was shifted accordingly to 27.7.1989. Since Shri Ramdeo Prasad had been granted promotion from that date as junior to the petitioner, the claim of the petitioner for promotion from 31.5.1975 was not tenable as none of the juniors of the petitioner have been granted promotion on that date. This Court has already noticed above that the petitioner has made specific allegations in paragraph-24 of the writ application of discrimination when his juniors have been promoted. The University firstly 3 contends that the petitioner has not cited specific instances. Obviously, it is not borne out from the records of the case. This Court had required the respondents to explain why the petitioner was not promoted 31.5.1975, as claimed. The University in its wisdom has chosen not to answer the same and the justification sought to be given with regard to the promotion to one Shri Ramdeo Prasad, as discussed above, is falsified from the pleadings in paragraph-24 of the writ application which remains u8nanswered. In the facts and circumstances of the case, when the University refuses to act fairly and meet the claims of the petitioner in a bona fide manner, but attempts to confuse issues only by giving half hearted answers, this Court has no option, but to hold justification in the claim of the petitioner as made out in paragraph-24 of the writ application of his juniors having been granted promotion to the post of Field Overseers from 31.5.1975. The petition is, therefore, allowed. He shall be deemed to have been promoted to the post of Field Overseer from 31.5.1975. Let the pensionary benefits of the petitioner be revised accordingly by deeming his date of promotion to the post of Field Overseer to be 31.5.1975 and not from 27.7.1989. It is held that the petitioner shall be entitled to consequential monetary benefits as with effect from 31.5.1975 similar to those granted to his juniors given the benefit of promotion to the said post from that date. KC ( Navin Sinha,J )