Letters Patent Appeal No. 129 of 2007 (Against the order dated 25.7.2006 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4812 of 2005) 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, SINCHAI BHAWAN, BIHAR, PATNA 3. UNDER SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, SINCHAI BHAWAN, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, DARBHANGA, DISTRICT- DARBHANGA. 5. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, WESTERN KOSHI CANAL CIRCLE,, JHANJHARPUR, DISTRICT- MADHUBANI. 6. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WESTERN KOSHI CANAL DIVISION IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, KHUTOUNA, MADHUBANI. -------------------------------------Appellants Versus NARENDRA KUMAR PATHAK, SON OF LATE MAHENDRA NARAYAN PATHAK, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-SISWA BARAHI, P.S.- PHULPARAS, DISTRICT- MADHUBANI, AT PRESENT ACCOUNTS CLERK IN THE OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WESTERN KOSHI CANAL DIVISION, KHUTOUNA, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, DISTRICT-MADHUBANI --------------------------------------Respondents For the appellants: : Mr. Sanjay Prakash Verma, A.C. to G.A. V For the respondent : Mr. Alok, Advocate. WITH LPA No.74 of 2007 (Against the order dated 9.5..2006 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4989 of 2005) 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, SINCHAI BHAWAN, PATNA. 2. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, SINCHAI BHAWAN, PATNA. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, SAMASTIPUR 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, FLOOD CONTROL DIVISION NO. II, JHANJHARPUR, DISTRICT- DARBHANGA. ----------------------------Appellants Versus 1. NAGENDRA MOHAN JHA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, SON OF LATE SURESHWAR JHA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- PHULPRAS, P.S.- PHULPRAS, DISTRICT- MADHUBANI. 2. HANUMAN CHOUDHARY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, SON OF LATE YOGU NANDAN CHOUDHARY, VILLAGE- OJAN GANGWALI, P.S.- SAKATPUR, DISTRICT- DARBHANGA. 2 3. DINESH JHA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, SON OF LATE DUKHOMOCHAN JHA, VILLAGE-ALPURA, P.O.- TAJPUR RATUPARA, P.S.- ANDHRA THARI, DISTRICT- MADHUBANI. -------------------------------Respondents For the appellants: : Mr. Sanjay Prakash Verma, A.C. to G.A. V For the respondents : Mr. Alok, Advocate. WITH LPA No.242 of 2006 (Against the order dated 04.01..2006 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 5254 of 2004) 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE IRRIGATION ADVISOR-CUM-COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 5. THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 6. THE JOINT SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA . 7. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 8. THE UNDER SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 9. THE CHIEF ENGINEER “SAMAGRA YOJNA NO. 3” IRRIGATION, BIHAR, PATNA. 10. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PLANNING AND MONITORING, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 11. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, DARBHANGA. 12. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, FLOOD CONTROL PLANNING AND MONITORING CIRCLE, SICHAI BHAVAN, BIHAR, PATNA. 13. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WEST KOSI CANAL SUB-DIVISION NO. 2, MADHUBANI ----------------------------------Appellants Versus MAHESHWAR JHA, SON OF LATE JIBACHH JHA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-NAVTOLI, POLICE STATION-RAJ NAGAR, POST OFFICE- MADHUBANI, DISTRICT- MADHUBANI, POSTED AS TYPIST IN THE OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WEST KOSI CANAL SUB-DIVISION NO. 2, MADHUBANI. -----------------------------------Respondent For the appellants: : Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Jha, A.C. to S.C.9 For the respondent : Mrs. Narmata Mishra, Advocate. WITH LPA No.120 of 2007 3 (Against the order dated 30.06.2006 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 5467 of 2004) 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, AT & P.O.- SAMASTIPUR, DISTRICT- SAMASTIPUR. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, FLOOD CONTROL DIVISION, AT & P.O.DARBHANGA, DISTRICT- DARBHANGA -----------------------------------Appellants Versus MEDHA NAND RAY, SON OF LATE AWADH NARAIN RAY, ACCOUNTS CLERK, FLOOD CONTROL DIVISION, AT & P.O.- DARBHANGA, DISTRICT- DARBHANGA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE & POST NARUAR, DISTRICT- MADHUBANI. -----------------------------------Respondent For the appellants : Mr. Sanjay Prakash Verma, A.C. to G.A. V For the respondent : Mr. Kalikant Jha, Advocate Mr. Manish Jha, Advocate. WITH LPA No.126 of 2007 (Against the order dated 21.06.2006 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2236 of 2005) 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE SECRETARY-CUM-COMMISSIONER, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE UNDER SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA . 4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, DESIGN CIRCLE, SAMASTIPUR. -------------------------------------Appellants Versus RAM PRIT MAHTO, SON OF LATE BENGALI MAHTO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- KUSHAIYA, P.S.- WARISNAGAR, DISTRICT- SAMASTIPUR ----------------------------------------Respondent For the appellants : Mr. Sanjay Prakash Verma, A.C. to G.A. V For the respondent : Mr. Abhay Shankar Singh, Advocate WITH LPA No.938 of 2006 (Against the order dated 23.06.2006 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4624 of 2005) 4 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR,THROUGH THE SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, SINCHAI BHAWAN, PATNA. 2. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, SINCHAI BHAWAN, PATNA. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, DARBHANGA. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WEST KOSHI CANAL DIVISION NO. 1, JAI NAGAR, DISTRICT- MADHUBANI. -------------------------------Appellants Versus TEJ NARAYAN LAL DAS, SON OF CHANAN LAL DAS, RESIDENT OF BALUA BAZAR, P.S.- CHHATAPUR, DISTRICT- SUPAUL. ------------------------------------Respondent For the appellants : Mr. Sanjay Prakash Verma, A.C. to G.A. V For the respondent : Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate WITH LPA No.945 of 2006 (Against the order dated 23.06.2006 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2251 of 2005) 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, SINCHAI BHAWAN, PATNA. 2. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, SINCHAI BHAWAN, PATNA. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, DARBHANGA. -------------------------------------Appellants Versus 1. NAWAL KUMAR JHA, SON OF LATE DAYANATH JHA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-KOILAKH, P.S.- RAJ NAGAR, DISTRICT- MADHUBANI. 2. SHIV KANT YADAV, SON OF LATE RAM GULAM YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-BAIRISHI, P.S.- LAUKAHI, DISTRICT- MADHUBANI. 3. RANA VIJAY SINGH, SON OF LATE BINDA SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-KHANDOSARI, P.S.- KAUWAKOL, DISTRICT- NAWADA. -----------------------------Respondents For the appellants : Mr. Sanjay Prakash Verma, A.C. to G.A. V For the respondent : Mr. Alok, Advocate P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K.KATRIAR THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL S.K. Katriar J. The State of Bihar has preferred this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at 5 Patna, and is aggrieved by the order dated 25.7.2006, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, in C.W.J.C. No. 4812 of 2005 (Narendra Kumar Pathak versus The State of Bihar & Ors), whereby the writ petition has been allowed, and the impugned order dated 19.3.2005(Annexure-7 to the writ petition) has been set aside. L.P.A. No. 129 of 2007 2. We shall first take up L.P.A. No. 129 of 2007 (arising out of C.W.J.C. No. 4812 of 2005 (Narendra Kumar Pathak versus The State of Bihar & Ors). A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the appeal may be indicated. We shall go by the description of the parties occurring in the writ proceedings The petitioner was appointed as a Chowkidar, a Class-IV post, in a work-charged establishment of one of the engineering departments of the Government of Bihar on 28.6.1975, in the pay- scale of Rs. 155-190. He joined as such on 10.7.1975. The Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Circle, Darbhanga, issued order dated 1.6.1981 (Annexure-1), whereby the services of the writ petitioner was regularized, and was provisionally promoted to the next higher post of Sub-Divisional Clerk in the scale of Rs. 260-408. 3. The said order dated 1.6.1981 (Annexure-1), was passed in view of the policy decision of the State Government contained in letter no. 941, dated 19.2.1981 (Annexure-A), which provided for regularisation of services of such persons working in 6 work-charged establishment on Class-IV posts. Under the cover of the policy decision, the subordinate officials at the local level regularised the services of Class-IV employees, and simultaneously gave them promotion on provisional basis to Class- III posts, which took place on large-scale basis, perhaps throughout the State of Bihar. Taking notice of the situation, the State Government issued order no. 517, dated 2.4.1983 (Annexure-B), calling upon the local authorities to take appropriate action in accordance with the directions stated therein, the relevant portion of which is reproduced hereinbelow: “ fdlh Hkh ifjfLFkfr esa dk;ZHkkfjr deZpkfj;ksa dks lkeatu ds ek/;e ls izksUufr nsus dk funsZ” ljdkj dk ugha gS A rkRi;Z ;g gS fd fdlh Hkh ifjfLFkfr esa prqFkZ oxZ ds deZpkfj;ksa dks lkeatu ds uke ij r`rh; oxZ dk in nsuk ugha gS A ** In other words, the authorities were directed to revert such employees to Class-IV posts. Consequently, show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner calling him upon to explain as to why he be not reverted to Class-IV post. The petitioner had shown cause to the same leading to the impugned order dated 19.3.2005 (Annexure-7), whereby he has been reverted to the Class-IV post of Chowkidar leading to the writ petition. The learned Single Judge has set aside the impugned order dated 19.3.2005, inter alia, on the ground that irregular appointment or promotion can be corrected within a reasonable time, and not after expiry of a period extending over a decade or a quarter century, as has happened in 7 the present case. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the validity of the order of the learned Single Judge on various grounds. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has supported the same. 5. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears to us that the writ petitioner was initially appointed as a Chowkidar on a Class-IV post on 10.7.1975, which he had joined on 16.12.1978 in a work-charged establishment. The writ petitioner admittedly did not possess the minimum educational qualification for a Class-III post. There was indeed the policy decision of the State Government to regularize the services of such persons in the same grade and in the same scale of pay, provided they had started working in the work-charged establishment prior to the cut- off date, i.e. 21.8.1975. In that view of the matter, regularisation of the services of the writ petitioner in terms of the policy decision has not been assailed in the present appeal. The impugned order dated 19.3.2005, cannot to that extent be faulted. 6. The difficulty arises as to the second benefit granted to the writ petitioner by the same order, namely, giving him promotion on provisional basis to the post of sub-divisional clerk in the pay scale of Rs. 730-1080. We are clearly of the view that regularization has to be done in the same category of employment and cannot be accompanied with a promotion, and the policy 8 decision was also to the same effect. It appears that such irregular promotions, which were taking place throughout the State of Bihar, attracted the attention of the State Government and took the corrective step by issuing letter dated 2.4.1983, calling upon the authorities to revert them to Class-IV posts. It appears that the local authorities purposely sat over the matter and did not take appropriate action as per the direction of the State Government. Show-cause notice was ultimately issued to the writ petitioner leading to the order dated 19.3.2005. We are thus convinced that that the petitioner was, on the occasion of regularisation of his service in the Bihar Government as a Class-IV employee, given the additional benefit of promotion in a most illegal and blatant manner by promoting them provisionally on the next higher post. The mala fides on their part is writ large on the face of it. They defied the clear direction of the State Government contained in letter dated 2.4.1983, and the impugned order could be passed on 19.3.2005. 7. Law is well settled that the government is not bound by the ultra vires act of its employees. Public bodies or the government cannot be compelled to carry out the representation or promise which is contrary to law or which is outside the authority or power. Reference may be made to the following judgments of the Supreme Court:. (i) (1995) 4 S.C.C. 30 (Shabi Construction Company. versus City & Industrial Development Corporation. 9 (ii) (2001) 4 S.C.C. 309 (Union of India versus Rakesh Kumar) (iii) (2008) 12 S.C.C. 675 (State of U.P. versus Uttar Pradesh Rajya Khanij Vikas kNigam Sangharsh Samiti & Ors.) 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has rightly relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Prabhat Kumar Roy versus Ranchi University, reported in 1994(2)P.L.J.R. 735, paragraph 30 of which is reproduced herein for the facility of quick reference: “It has further been held by the Supreme Court that natural justice should be viewed in circumstantial flexibility (1991(4)S.C.C. 584). It is also well known that the principles of natural justice need not be complied with when it would result in futility. It is also a settled law that any appointment made in violation of Article 16 of the Constitution of India or made by a person having no jurisdiction would be a nullity.” 9. Identical issues were discussed by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Durganand Jha versus The State of Bihar & Ors reported in 2007(4)P.L.J.R. 259, paragraphs 24, 25 and 28 of which are relevant in the present context and are reproduced hereinbelow: “24. The writ petitioners, as it appears from the materials on record, who were regularized from Work Charged Establishment to regular establishment have no indefeasible right to challenge the order of reversion in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in case of State of Rajasthan vs. Kunji Raman (supra). 25. So far the writ petitioners, who were regularized/promoted on Class III posts in the regular establishment are concerned, I do not find sufficient materials to hold that their entry in Class 10 IV posts was in accordance with law and the mandates of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. They were engaged on Class IV posts either as casual or daily rated workers for exigency of works and it has not been demonstrated in the writ applications that they were promoted/regularized on Class III posts by the State authorities in accordance with the provisions of law, circulars and mandates of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This has been prominent view of the Courts of law that appointments made without following the due process or the Rules for appointment did not confer any right on the appointees. 28. For the reasons aforementioned and in view of the legal propositions, as referred to above, it is held that the writ petitioners do not have legal enforceable right to ask for a writ of certiorari quashing the orders impugned.” 10. In the result, we do not find it possible to agree with the order of the learned Single Judge. We restore the order dated 19.3.2005, of the respondent authorities. The appeal is allowed. L.P.A. No. 74 of 2007 11. The State of Bihar has preferred this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of High Court of Judicature at Patna, and is aggrieved by the order dated 09.05.2006, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, in C.W.J.C. No. 4989 of 2005 (Nagendra Mohan Jha & Ors versus The State of Bihar & Ors), whereby the writ petition has been allowed, and the impugned orders dated 3.12.2004, 30.8.2004, and 02.03.2005, have been set aside. 12. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the appeal may be indicated. We shall go by the description of the parties occurring in the writ proceedings. Petitioner no. 1 11 (Nagendra Mohan Jha) had joined as Work Sarkar in a work- charged establishment in one of the engineering departments of the Government of Bihar on 5.2.1973. Petitioner no. 2 (Hanuman Chaudhary) was similarly appointed as a Dak Runner in a work- charged establishment on 1.4.1969. Petitioner no. 3 (Dinesh Jha) was appointed as a Mate in a work-charged establishment on 12.12.1973. All the three were appointed on Class IV posts. The State Government formulated a policy decision dated 19.2.1981, with a view to regularise the services of such Class-IV employees working in the work-charged establishment, in the services of Bihar Government. Accordingly, services of petitioner no. 1 was regularised, and provisionally promoted as Correspondence Clerk, by order dated 29.8.1981. Petitioner no. 2 was similarly regularised and provisionally promoted as Correspondence Clerk, by order dated 29.8.1981. Services of the petitioner no. 3 was also regularised, and was provisionally promoted as Correspondence Clerk by order dated 11.2.1982. None of the three petitioners admittedly possessed the minimum educational qualifications for a Class-III post. 13. The State Government received reports from different parts of the State that such absorption as Class IV employees, and provisional promotion to the higher posts, were given to the employees of the work-charged establishment. The State Government, therefore, took steps to rectify the mistakes being committed at the local level, and accordingly issued policy 12 decision dated 2.4.1983, reverting all such employees to Class-IV posts. Consequently, show-cause notices were issued to the three petitioners. On a consideration of the materials on record, petitioner no. 1 was reverted to Class-IV post by order dated 3.12.2004, petitioner no. 2 was reverted by order dated 30.8.2004, and petitioner no. 3 was reverted by order dated 2.3.2005, leading to the writ petition which has been allowed, and the said orders of reversion have been set aside. 14. Learned counsel for the appellants assails the validity of the order of the learned Writ Court. Learned counsel for the respondent supports the same. He relies on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Koshi Project Works Association versus The State of Bihar & Ors, reported in 2007(1) P.L.J.R. 358. 15. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears to us that the present case and the aforesaid L.P.A. no. 129 of 2007, raise identical issues, and stand on just the same footing, the only difference being in the dates of orders, regularisation and reversion. The orders with respect to the petitioners of both the writ petitions are governed by the same policy decisions and the same laws. 16. For the reasons assigned hereinabove, we do not agree with the order dated 9.5.2006, passed by the learned Writ Court in C.W.J.C. No. 4989 of 2005. The appeal is allowed, and the orders dated 3.12.2004, 30.8.2004 and 2.3.2005 (Annexure-1 13 series), are hereby restored. L.P.A. No. 242 of 2006 17. The State of Bihar has preferred this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of High Court of Judicature at Patna, and is aggrieved by the order dated 04.01.2006, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, in C.W.J.C. No. 5254 of 2004 (Maheshwar Jha versus The State of Bihar & Ors), whereby the writ petition has been allowed, the impugned order dated 3.4.2004, has been set aside, and regularisation and promotion to Class-III post has been upheld. 18. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the appeal may be indicated. We shall go by the description of the parties occurring in the writ proceedings. The writ petitioner was initially appointed as a Survey Khalasi, a Class-IV post in the work-charged establishment of one of the Engineering Departments of the Bihar Government on 23.3.1972. He had joined as such on 1.4.1972. The State Government issued guidelines dated 19.2.1981 (Annexure-1), for regularisation of such work-charged employees, in the services of Bihar Government and the benefit was extended to all such employees who had started working on or before 21.8.1975. By order dated 28.1.1982 (Annexure-5), the services of the writ petitioner were regularized, and he was provisionally promoted as Typist, a Class- III post. The State Government received complaints from various parts of the State that such orders at local level are being issued 14 whereby promotion to the next higher post was being given while regularizing their services as Class-IV employees. Consequently, the State Government issued letter dated 2.4.1983(Annexure-10), directing the local authorities to revert such employees to Class-IV posts. Show-cause notice was accordingly issued on 5.9.1995 (Annexure-8), and petitioner had shown cause by his communication dated 14.9.1995 (Annexure-9), leading to the impugned order whereby the said order dated 28.1.1982 was recalled to the extent of his provisional promotion to the post of Typist, his regularisation as a Class-IV employees has remained unmutilated, leading to the writ petition which has been allowed. Hence this appeal at the instance of the State of Bihar. 19. The present appeal is identical to that of the aforesaid L.P.A. no. 129 of 2007, except the dates of appointment, absorption, or show-cause notice which the writ petitioner admittedly did not possess the requisite minimum educational qualification for a Class-III post. 20. For the reasons assigned in L.P.A. No. 129 of 2007, we disagree with the orders of the learned Single Judge. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order dated 3.4.2004 (Annexure-15), is hereby restored. L.P.A. No. 120 of 2007 21. The State of Bihar has preferred this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of High Court of Judicature at Patna, and is aggrieved by the order dated 30.06.2006, passed by 15 a learned Single Judge of this Court, in C.W.J.C. No. 5467 of 2004 (Medha Nand Roy versus The State of Bihar & Ors), whereby the writ petition has been allowed, the impugned order dated 14.02.2004, has been set aside, and the writ petitioner’s promotion to the Class-III post has been restored. 22. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the appeal may be indicated. We shall go by the description of the parties occurring in the writ proceedings. The writ petitioner has initially started working as a Site Guard, a Class-IV post, in the work-charged establishment of one of the engineering departments of the Bihar Government on 01.02.1974. In view of the policy decision of the State Government, he was confirmed on a Class-IV post in the services of the Bihar Government and was also provisionally promoted to the post of Junior Grade Accounts Clerk, Class-III post, by order dated 4.7.1980 (Annexure-3). In view of the aforesaid policy decision of the State Government, show-cause notice dated 7.2.2004 was issued to him as to why he be not reverted to the Class-IV post. The petitioner had shown cause to the same. On consideration of the materials on record and the policy decisions governing the issues, the petitioner has been reverted to Class-IV post by order dated 14.2.2004 (Annexure-7), leading to the writ petition which has been allowed. Hence this appeal. 23. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The 16 present appeal is identical to the aforesaid L.P.A. no. 129 of 2007, except the dates of appointments, absorptions, or show-cause notice etc. are different. The writ petitioner admittedly did not possess the minimum educational qualification for a Class-III post. For the reasons assigned in L.P.A. No. 129 of 2007, we disagree with the order of the learned Single Judge. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order dated 14.02.2004 (Annexure-7), is hereby restored. L.P.A. No. 126 of 2007 24. The State of Bihar has preferred this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of High Court of Judicature at Patna, and is aggrieved by the order dated 21.06.2006, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, in C.W.J.C. No. 2236 of 2005 (Ram Prit Mahto versus The State of Bihar & Ors), whereby the writ petition has been allowed, the impugned order dated 03.12.2004 (Annexure-8) has been set aside, and the writ petitioner’s promotion to the Class-III post has been restored. 25. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the appeal may be indicated. We shall go by the description of the parties occurring in the writ proceedings. The writ petitioner was appointed as a Site Chowkidar, a Class-IV post, in a work- charged establishment of one of the engineering departments of the Bihar Government on 29.4.1974 (Annexure-1). In view of the policy decision of the State Government, his services as a Class IV employee in the Bihar Government was regularized. He was 17 also given provisional promotion to the post of Clerk in the Flood Control Division, by order