IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15806 of 2005 RAJENDRA PRASAD I son of Sri Sitaram Sah, resident of village – Sonhathu, P S – Haspura, District – Aurangabad. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. Secretary cum Inspector General of Registration, Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 3. Inspector General of Registration, Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 4. District Magistrate, Aurangabad. 5. District Sub Registrar, Registration Office, Aurangabad. ----------- For the petitioner: M/S. Devendra Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate, Biresh Kumar Sinha and Abhinay Raj. For the State : Mr. R B N Singh, AC to SC 10. ****** 03. 24.9.2010 Case for promotion prayed for by the petitioner has been rejected by the respondents in terms of Annexure-7. This order has been passed in light of the earlier direction of the Court to consider the claim of the petitioner in view of what was urged before the Court then. The Departmental Promotion Committee sat and considered the case of the petitioner. The Departmental Promotion Committee taking into consideration the service record, the various adverse remarks made as well as punishment orders recorded against the petitioner, came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not entitled to the promotion which he was claiming. The said claim was rejected as the DPC did not find him fit to grant such promotion. Based on the decision of the DPC, the I G, Registration communicated the outcome to the petitioner. Submission of the senior counsel is that in the earlier order passed by the Court certain submissions were made to indicate that the so-called adverse remarks lost its meaning after the year 1988. The next 2 punishment only came in the year 1991 and now it is not open to the respondents to wish that position away while deciding his claim. Whatever be the observation of the Court contained in Annexure-5, the fact stands that the learned single Judge did not decide the merit of the claim of the petitioner for grant of such promotion. Matter was left to the respondents to consider his case in its entirety. When the DPC met the worm of cans tumbled out from the service record of the petitioner and his claim was rejected. The factual position has been duly recorded in the proceeding of the DPC annexed with Anneure-7. In view of what actually exits on record against the petitioner, there is no occasion to interfere with the impugned order because claim of promotion of an employee is based on his eligibility and the actual position which emerges from his service record. The observation of the learned single Judge was a tentative observation based on the submissions made then and in absence of proper pleadings or submissions made by the counsel for the State. There is no occasion to interfere with the order impugned in view of the findings recorded by the Departmental Promotion Committee. The writ application is dismissed. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)