IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3621 of 2007 Gajendraa Prasad Vishwakarma Son of late Gautam Vishwakarma, Resident of Bibiganj, P.S. Danapur Cantt. District- Patna. -------- Petitioner. Versus 1.Bihar State Board of Religious Trust, Vidyapati Marg, Patna through its Administrator-cum-Officer on Special Duty. 2.The Superintendent , Bihar State Board of Religious Trust, Vidyapati Marg, Patna -------- Respondent. ---------- 2. 22.10.2008 Heard Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh for the petitioner, and Mr. Ambuj Nayan Chaubey for the respondents. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 27.11.2006 (Annexure-3), passed by the Administrator-cum-Officer on Special Duty of the Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts (hereinafter referred to as the „Board‟), whereby the petitioner‟s promotion to the post of the Assistant Superintendent has been rescinded and he has been reverted to the substantive post of Inspector for the reasons assigned therein. Brief resume of facts essential for the disposal of the writ petition may be indicated. The petitioner is functioning as Inspector in the Board‟s establishment. He was promoted as Incharge Assistant Superintendent by resolution of the Board at its meeting dated 28.6.2004 (Annexure-1). His case for substantive promotion was considered by the Board at its meeting held on 17.3.2005 and 25.4.2005 (Annexure-2). He was promoted to the post of Assistant Superintendent on permanent basis. The Board was thereafter superseded and has been replaced by the Administrator-cum Officer on Special Duty in whom the powers of the Board are vested. In 2 exercise of his powers the Administrator, he passed the impugned order rescinding the petitioner‟s promotion and reverting him to the substantive position as Inspector. Hence the present writ petition. While assailing the validity of the impugned order learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner‟s case was considered at length at the Board‟s meeting held on 17.3.2005 and 25.4.2005, and on a comparison of merits of other persons within the zone of consideration, the petitioner was substantively promoted to the post of Assistant Superintendent. No further development has taken place to recall the order. He next submits that the Administrator has no powers of review to recall the Board‟s order. Learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned action. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. Rule 6 of the Bye-Laws for the State Board of Religious Trusts reads as follows: “6. Re-opening of decided questions.- No question once decided by the Board can be re-opened within six months of the decision except with the special leave of the presiding Officer on a re-question signed by at least six members.” It is thus evident that the Administrator-cum-Officer on Special Duty, who is vested with all the powers of the Board including those conferred by the aforesaid Rule 6. It is evident from a perusal of Rule 6 that the Board, and for that matter, the Administrator in the present case, is vested with the powers to re- 3 open the matter already decided with the terms and conditions mentioned therein which is akin to the powers of review. The Administrator has, therefore, the power and jurisdiction to examine the matter, reopen the petitioner‟s promotion to the post of Assistant Superintendent and pass fresh order. It appears on a perusal of the impugned order that the petitioner‟s promotion has been rescinded on diverse grounds. Minimum educational qualification for the post of Assistant Superintendent has to be graduate, whereas the petitioner is not a graduate. The second reason assigned therein is that one Sashi Bhushan Singh, Inspector, was directly promoted to the post of Superintendent. He has been reverted to the post of Assistant Superintendent for the reason that he had been so promoted without being promoted to the intermediary post of Assistant Superintendent. Thirdly section 23 of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950, provides that a Superintendent can be appointed or promoted on with the approval of the State Government. No such approval was obtained with respect to the promotion of Sashi Bhushan Singh to the post of the Superintendent. In other words, consequent upon his reversion to the post of Assistant Superintendent, he occupies once of the two posts. The fourth reason assigned in the impugned order is that one Tulsi Das Goshwami another Inspector is senior and superior to the present petitioner. He has, therefore, been promoted to the post of Assistant Superintendent as a result of which no post is now available for the 4 petitioner, It thus appears to me that the impugned order has been passed for valid reasons and is fit to be up-held. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar , J.)