IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13480 of 2002 1. RAMESHWAR RAM son of Sri Jokhan Ram, resident of village Bagsanda, P. S. Tarari, District Bhojpur. 2. Bechan Rajak, son of Shri Ramchandra Rajak, Assistant Engineer Rural Development Special Division No. 1 Gaya, District Gaya. 3. Kishore Kumar Paswan, son of Shri Ram Prasad Hazra, resident of village Garahi, P. S. Jagdishpur, District West Champaran. 4. Chandra Hembram, son of late Jishu Hembram, resident of village- Palita, P. S. Sabanpur, District Jamtara (Jharkhand) 5. Rajendra Ravidas, son of late Ganga Ravidas, resident of behind Durga High School, Lakhisarai, P. s. and District Lakhisarai. 6. Sidheswar Prasad, son of Late Doman Prasad, resident of village Bikan Bigaha, P. S. Guraru Mills, District Gaya. … Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, through the Commissioner- cum- Secretary, Water Resources Department, Sinchai Bhawan, Patna. 2. The Special Secretary, Water Resources Department, Sinchai Bhawan, Patna. 3. The Deputy Secretary, Water Resources Department, Sinchai Bhawan, Patna. … Respondents ----------- For the petitioners .. Mr. R. N. Mukhopadhyay, Adv. For the State Mr. Prabhat Kr. Singh, SC-21 Mr. Sanjeev Kr. Singh, AC to SC-21 ------ 8. 07.07.2009. Heard counsel for the petitioners and counsel for the State. In this writ application, the prayer of the petitioners reads as follows:- “1. that by this writ petition, the petitioners pray for a direction against the order dated 20.6.2002 issued by the respondent- Deputy Secretary, Water Resources Department, Patna, by which the respondents have illegally shifted 2 the date of promotion ( to the higher post of Assistant Engineer) from the due date of quota to a fictitious date without application of mind.” In order to appreciate the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners once must take note of the purport of the impugned order dated 20.6.2002 which as a matter of fact only seems to fix the date of promotion of the petitioners and other assistant engineers promoted in the same transaction of the year 1995 after annulling the earlier decision of Government in the order dated 28.7.2001 (Annexure-13). Mr. R. N. Mukhopadhyay would submit that once the petitioner was given a specific date of promotion of January 1995, the impugned order taking away the benefit of fixation of such seniority and putting him and other promoted persons in the same transaction of the year 1995 would amount to take away the accrued vested right in the seniority of the petitioner. He would also expand his submission by placing reliance on a statement made in paragraph 2 of 3 notification dated 28.7.2001 wherein the post for promotion by way of carry forward were not specified with regard to the actual date of promotion. In the opinion of this Court, the entire apprehension of the petitioners in the matter of fixation of their seniority is wholly misconceived. In fact the impugned order annexure- 1 is not detrimental to the interest of the petitioners because if the petitioners are taken to be promotees of the same transaction of the year 1995 as has been clearly stated in Annexure-1, any direct recruit of the year 1995 as per seniority rules will always rank junior to the petitioners. The petitioners cannot have any other grievance against the Junior Engineers promoted in the same transaction of the year 1995 on the post of Assistant Engineer as there inter se seniority on the post of Junior Engineer will also govern their seniority on the promoted post of Assistant Engineer. As a matter of fact it was the inconsistent date of promotion of the Junior Engineers on the 4 post of Assistant Engineers which had caused rift and imbalance, though all of them were promoted in the same transaction. Such anomaly infact was only sought to be rectified by the impugned order, which reads as follows : - ^^ty lalk/ku foHkkx ds v/khu o"kZ 1998 ds fjfDr;ksa ds fo:n~/k okf"kZd pkfj=h ,oa fuxjkuh dh miyC/krk ds vuqlkj o"kA 1995 ls o"kZ 1997 ds chp fofHkUu vfulqpukvkas }kjk vkjf{kr o"kZ ds ,d lkS duh; vfHk;arkvksa dks lgk;d vfHk;Urk ds in ij izksUufr nh x;h rFkk ckn esa duh; vfHk;Urk ds in ij vk0 o"kksZa dh fu/kZkfjr dkykof/k ds izko/kku ds rgr foHkkxh; vf/klqpuk la[;k 1713 fnukad 20-7- 2001 }kjk mDr duh; vfHk;Urkvkas dks muds duh; vfHk;Urk ds in ij ;ksxnku dh frfFk ls 8 o"kZ iw.kZ gksus dh frfFk ls lgk;d vfHk;Urk ds in ij izksUufr dh ns; frfFk dk fu/kkZj.k fd;k x;kA bl vkns'k ds fuxZr gksus ds i'pkr ;g O;ogkfjd dfBukbZ eglql dh x;h fd% AA- fjfDr;ka ,d gh lEogkj dh jgus ds ckotqn buds lgk;d vfHk;Urk ds in ij ojh;rk dk fu/kkZj.k o"kZ 1995 ls 1997 rd esa muds izksUufr dh fof/k esa gks x;hA AA- buds duh; vfHk;Urk ds in ij fu/kkZfjr ikjLifjd ojh;rk dzekad dh lkis{krk Hkax gqbZA 2- vr% lE;d fopkjksijkUr foHkkxh; vkns'k la[;k 1713 fnukad 26-7-2001 dks fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA 3- bu izkUufr lgk;d vfHk;Urkvksa ds izksUufr dk lEo;ogkj o"kZ 1995 fu/kkZfjr dh tkrh gSA 4- bu lgk;d vfHk;Urkvksa dh 5 ikjLifjd ojh;rk buds duh; vfHk;Urk ds in ij fu/kkZfjr ojh;rk ds dze esa gksxh u fd duh; vfHk;Urk ds lEoxZ esa ;ksxnku djus dh fof/k ls tSlk fd iwoZ esa fd;k x;k FkkA** In that view of the matter, this court would find hardly any justification in the grievance of the petitioners only because the respondents have not fixed a particular date of promotion for reckoning their inter-se seniority. Such decision will never prejudice the petitioners because so far their inter-se seniority amongst the promotees of the same transaction is concerned, it will always be on the basis of their earlier seniority on the post of Junior Engineer. Thus the limited scope of the impugned order being very well within the settled rule of seniority needs no interference of this Court. With the aforementioned observations, this writ application is disposed of. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)