IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1047 of 2010 -------------- The Magadh Gramin Bank & Anr Versus Ramesh Prasad Mishra & Anr ---------------------------------- 3 20-9-2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State. The writ court, in our view, has rightly answered the relevant issue by holding that if the order of punishment, which was the basis for not considering the cases of the petitioners for promotion, was ultimately modified or set aside so as to make them eligible for promotion, their cases have to be considered for promotion with retrospective effect so that they do not suffer from any injury vis-à-vis their other colleagues. We find no merit this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. Our attention was drawn to rules or guidelines mentioned in letters contained in annexure-2 series to the writ petition. No doubt, they contemplate that those who have been awarded punishment other than censure or reprimand within last five years prior to cut off date, will 2 not be eligible for consideration for promotion. However, those rules/guidelines are silent as to what shall be the procedure where a punishment has not attained finality due to statutory right to appeal or pendency of such appeal. In our view, at least till the disposal of appeal etc. as per internal remedy provided, the order of punishment could not have been treated as final for making the writ petitioners ineligible for consideration. The appropriate course in consonance with equity and justice would have been to adopt the procedure of sealed cover after giving them opportunity to appear in the examination. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sheo Singh Vrs. Union of India does not apply to the facts of this case because in that case the punishment awarded to the concerned employee had attained finality and hence he was treated disqualified in view of the rules. The interpretation of law and final order made by the writ court, in our view, does not suffer from any 3 illegality to warrant interference. This appeal is dismissed. ( Shiva Kirti Singh,J) ( Shivaji Pandey,J)