IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16321 of 2004 MD.KALAMUDDIN & ANR Versus CIVIL COURT,GAYA & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Subodh Kumar, Adv. For the Respondents: AAG 3 ***** 05. 10.02.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioners are working on Class IV post in the Judgeship of Gaya. Their grievance is that despite an observation made by the High Court in Civil Review No. 25 of 1998, the District & Sessions Judge, Civil Court, Gaya and other concerned authorities did not hold any limited examination for promotion from Class IV post to Class III for the candidates, belonging to the reserved quota. On perusal of the Order, passed in Civil Review No. 25 of 1998 (Annexure-1), it transpires that the petitioners of Civil Review Application were given liberty to make representation before the District & Sessions Judge, requesting that the unfilled vacancies in the reserved quota to be filled up on the basis of limited selection test of Class IV employees in future. In case such a representation is filed, it is expected that the District & Sessions 2 Judge will pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The petitioners have annexed their representation as Annexure-2, which in undated. From this Annexure, it is not clear whether the representation was filed immediately after the disposal of the Review Application. In the Counter Affidavit, filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 5, in para 12, there is complete denial that any such representation had ever been filed by the petitioners or their representatives. Along with the reply to the Counter Affidavit, another representation has been annexed, which is of the year 2009. From the Counter Affidavit, it transpires that petitioner no. 1 thereafter appeared in the limited promotional examination, conducted for promotion of Class IV employees to Class III post, but he was not declared successful. It seems that petitioner no. 2 has not yet appeared in the examination. Considering the pleadings, it is apparent that the observation made in the Review Application was not complied with by the 3 petitioners. They did not file any representation immediately after disposal of the Review Application. There was no request on behalf of the petitioners for holding such limited examination for candidates belonging to reserved quota. From the Counter Affidavit, it transpires that in the year 2009, when the limited examination was held, 49 employees participated. Petitioner No. 1 was also one of them. Out of 51 applications, after scrutiny, 49 candidates appeared in the written test. 14 candidates were selected on merit. Petitioner No. 1 was not declared successful. It goes without saying that the petitioners have still their option for appearing in the limited examination for appointment for promotion on Class III post. So far the reservation quota is concerned, that has to be given effect to by the District & Sessions Judge, Gaya, in case the reserved category candidates, like the petitioner, had appeared in the examination. I do not find that any restrain was there to the petitioner for appearing in the examination. 4 Considering all these facts, this application is being disposed of. The petitioners may appear in the limited examination for promotion, whenever it is conducted by the District & Sessions Judge in the recent future. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. SKM (Mridula Mishra, J.)