IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15269 of 2009 YOGENDRA SINGH, S/O LATE SUKHRAJ SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NIZAMPUR, P.S. PHULWARISARIF (OLD) JANIBPUR (NEW), DISTRICT PATNA, PRESENTLY POSTED AS TYPIST, STATE FOOD CORPORATION OFFICE, PATNA. ... ... PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE BIHAR STATE FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED THROUGH ITS CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, LTHE BIHAR STATE FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DISTRICT MANAGER, BIHAR STATE FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION, PATNA, DISTT. PATNA. 5. RAM CHANDRA MANDAL, S/O LNOT KNOWN, PRESENTLY POSTED AS TYPIST, M.D. OFFICE, SONE BHAWAN, BIHAR STATE FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD., BIRCHAND PATEL PATH, PATNA. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Arun Kumar 1, Adv. For Respondent Corporation : M/S R.S. Pradhan,Adv. A.N. Rai,Adv. For Respondents : Mr. Chandra Bhushan Pd. A.C. to S.C.23. ----------- 2. 12.11.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner was appointed as a Peon in the Bihar State Food Civil Supplies Corporation whereafter he has been asked to officiate as a typist and he is officiating as a typist from the year 1996 and has also passed the typing test, the authorities however have not considered the case of the petitioner for appointment as a typist although person junior to him, respondent - 2 - N.H./ no.5 has been so appointed. Let the Managing Director consider the case of the petitioner for appointment/promotion as a Typist as he is discharging the duties of a typist from the year 1996 in accordance with law as early as possible in any case within three months from the date of receipt of the representation along with a copy of this order. While considering the case of the petitioner, the authorities will bear in mind the case of respondent no.5, who was appointed as a Peon after the petitioner but promoted as a Salesman earlier to the petitioner and while considering the case of respondent no.5 for promotion as Salesman, case of the petitioner was not considered. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. ( V.N. Sinha,J.)