IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1214 of 2010 1. SURESH PRASAD SINGH S/O LATE RAMCHANDRA SINGH R/O BAGMUSA MAR, I.T.I. HAJIPUR, P.S.- HAJIPUR, TOWN, DISTT.- VAISHALI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCE, DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DIRECTOR (PRIMARY EDUCATION) HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION TIRHUT DIVISION, MUZAFFARPUR 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER VAISHALI 5. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (PRIMARY EDUCATION) HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, PATNA 6. ABHIRAM JHA S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER PRESENTLY POSTED AS ASSISTANT TEACHER IN BASIC SCHOOL KARIHARA, DISTT.- SAMASTIPUR ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh, Sr. Adv. M/s Brisketu Sharan Pandey, Gyan Shan kas and Brajesh Kumar For the Respondents: A.C. to A.A.G.8 4 11.10.2010 The petitioner is in the cadre of Lower Subordinate Education Service as a teacher of basic school. He has came to this Court with a grievance that though the Departmental Promotion Committee found him fit for promotion in the cadre of Subordinate Education Service from Lower Subordinate Education service, he is wrongly being denied promotion by the department . A counter affidavit is filed by the State stating that there is no denial of the fact that the petitioner was found entitled to promotion to the superior cadre but the stand taken in the counter affidavit is that in the gradation list prepared in the 2 year 2006 ,there appears to be some discrepancies in respect of petitioner’s date of birth and initial appointment and it is only awaiting clarification that he has not been granted promotion. In the counter affidavit it is not denied that the person immediately above him in the gradation list and the person immediately below him in the gradation list, all have been promoted to the senior cadre. In the supplementary counter affidavit and the rejoinder to the counter affidavit ,petitioner has clearly brought out on record that the reasons, as given by the State, are farcical and misconceived .He clearly points out that the correct date of appointment and the date of birth are duly noted in the 2002 gradation list . By mistake the gradation list of 2006 was prepared. Upon noticing the mistake, the petitioner immediately sought correction. He was originally shown at serial 348 of the 2006 gradation list. Upon consideration of his objection and correction, this gradation list was duly revised and he was placed at his seniority serial 451(A). One Uma Kant Singh was shown at serial 451 and Ranjit Kumar Singh shown at serial no. 452. As per Annexure 2 to the supplementary affidavit of the petitioner, which was filed before the counter affidavit was filed, which annexure is the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee .It is clearly shown that the corrected seniority, as per the corrected gradation list, was taken into account and then the Departmental Promotion Committee recommended the 3 promotion .It is thus pointed out and submitted by Shri Tej Bahadur Singh, learned Senior Counsel in support of the writ petition that the stand of the State is patently false. The discrepancy in the 2006 gradation list was duly corrected and it is the corrected gradation list that was taken into account by the Departmental Promotion Committee. In the original 2006 gradation list, the petitioner was shown at serial 348 . That position was altered and the petitioner now came down to serial 451A . Both Uma Khat Singh ,who was above the petitioner at serial 451 and Ranjit Kumar, who was at serial 454 just below were recommended for promotion by the same Departmental Promotion Committee and have been granted promotion but the petitioner has been held back for this wrong reason. . Having heard the parties and with their consent, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself. From the facts ,as noted above, it is apparent that the excuse being given by the State is nonest. The discrepancy in the 2006 gradation list was corrected and the petitioner was repositioned from serial 348 to serial 451A. That was done before the Departmental Promotion Committee considered the matter .The Departmental Promotion Committee considered the matter in 2009,as per the new position of the petitioner .Thus the petitioner having found fit for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee, petitioner’s junior and immediately senior having been granted promotion, the 4 petitioner would thus be entitled to promotion immediately with effect from the date his immediate senior and his immediate junior were granted promotion. That would be the date of promotion and it would be deemed that the petitioner was accordingly promoted for all purpose and intent . The denial of promotion to the petitioner was thus wrong and misconceived ,if not mischievous. The Director of Primary Education, Bihar, Patna, is thus directed by mandamus to immediately give the effect to the order of this Court within one month of production of a copy of this order before him with all consequential benefits. The writ application is accordingly disposed of. Namita ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)