IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.697 of 2011 ---------- Appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 23-3- 2011 passed by a Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 7940 of 2006. --------- Amanullah son of late Syed Amiruddin, r/o Mohalla- Samanpura, P.S. Shashtrinagar, District- Patna, now retired as Steno Sub. Inspector of Police, Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Patna...................... Appellant Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Vigilance Commissioner, Cabinet (Vigilance) Department, Govt. of Bihar, 12/A Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg ( Bailey Road), Patna-800001. 3. The Director General of Police, Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Addl. Director General of Police, Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Govt. of Bihar, 6- Circular Road, Patna-800001. 5. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Govt. of Bihar, 6-Circular Road, Patna 6. The Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Investigation Burau, 6- Circular Road, Patna- 800001......................................................Respondents ------------- For the appellant :- Mr. Shanti Pratap, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar,S.C.7 ------------ 3 17-8-2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. From the earlier order passed by this Court it is 2 evident that opportunity was given to the appellant to make a categorical and clear statement that he had made a request for being sent to Police Training Centre again. In the supplementary affidavit the appellant has taken a stand in paragraph-4 that he had time and again approached the competent authority for relieving him for appearing at the examination but unfortunately he was not relieved. No document in support of such a claim has been annexed.We are not satisfied that the appellant had ever made any request or demand for being sent to P.T.C. for taking necessary test/examination. The writ court has held that under the Rules nobody could be promoted to the post of Inspector of Police in the general cadre unless he had cleared the examination of P.T.C. We gave opportunity to the appellant to place before us any rule or decision to the contrary. The appellant has annexed annexure 3 series to show that some Steno Assistant Sub-Inspectors were promoted to the post of Steno Sub-Inspector with effect from Ist. January, 1990 by an order issued on 2nd March, 2006. That document does not help the case of the appellant because admittedly the 3 appellant was also promoted from the post of Steno A.S.I. to Steno S.I. with effect from 1-4-1982. No doubt, some of the persons covered by the order contained in annexures were converted in the category of general Sub-Inspector of Police by order contained in annexure-3/1 dated 2nd March, 2006 by referring to provisions in the Bihar Police Manual but there is a clear mention that till the converted Sub- Inspectors of Police received training at P.T.C., they would not be promoted to work as general police and in spite of conversion they would continue to work as Steno Sub- Inspector of Police. We find no error or illegality in the order under appeal. The appeal is therefore, dismissed. Naresh ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) ( Shivaji Pandey,J)