IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14589 of 2011 Gyatri Kumari Daughter of Ramkeshwar Sing, Resident of Village-Aaruit, P.S.-Dhobhai,P.O.-Amarut,Ditrict-Gaya, presently posted as Assistant Teacher(Lower Subordinate Education Service) at Government Basic School,Amaruit,District-Gaya. ……. Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Human Resource Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director, Primary Education, Human Resource Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Magadh Division, Gaya. 4. District Education Officer, Gaya. 5. Smt. Indu Kumari Sharma/o not known to the petitioner presently posted as Assistant Teacher Govt. Basic School, Baluon,P.O.+P.S.- Baluan, District-Saran. ---------------------------------- 2 06.09.2011 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents no. 1 and 4. Even though the respondent no.5 is a private person, but learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she has been made a party by way of illustration to show that she being junior to the petitioner, has been granted promotion, which ought to have been given to the petitioner also. There is no challenge regarding entitlement for promotion against the private respondent. In view of the order proposed to be passed, this Court does not feel the necessity to pass any order for issuance of notice to the private respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though being entitled to promotion, the petitioner has been denied the same without assigning any valid or genuine reason and he further submits that the same is merely due to laches on the part of the official respondents in as much as her entire documents and papers relating to 2 her service including the ACRs were not put up and considered in time. In that view of the matter, he submits that because of certain formalities not being completed for which the petitioner was not responsible, her legal entitlement, for being considered for such promotion cannot be denied. This Court finds substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, this Court directs the respondents no. 1, 2 and 3 to consider the promotion of the petitioner in accordance with law especially in view of the fact that juniors to her have been promoted. Respondent no.2 is obliged to consider the case of the petitioner objectively in accordance with law and she will not be denied such promotion on the ground that the service records could not be placed before the Committee considering such promotion. Let the case of the petitioner be considered within three months from the date of receipt/production a copy of this order upon the respondents no.2 and 3. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits and the same shall be made available to her within the next three months thereafter. The writ petition, accordingly, stands disposed off. sudha (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)