1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.14921 of 2006 ====================================================== Gauri Shankar Prasad, son of late Baijnath Sah, resident of Village Chatra, P.O. Dawath, P.S. Dawath, District Rohtas. .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Regional Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Deputy Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna. 5. The District Superintendent of Education, Rohtas at Sasaram. .... .... Respondents ====================================================== 3 12-07-2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. As with regard to the following prayer of the petitioner:- “1. That the petitioner craves indulgence of this Hon'ble Court for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 20.12.2005 vide memo no. 3166/05 passed by District Superintendent of Education, Rohtas at Sasaram whereby and whereunder Learned District Superintendent of Education has been pleased to reject the representation of the petitioner dated 16.8.2005 and further for issuance of writ/writs, order/orders, command/commands and direction/directions, commanding the respondents to give notional promotion to the petitioner on the post of headmaster in the pay scale of B.A. Trained and in doing so he should be given al the consequential reliefs by way of arrears of salary, pay fixation, increments etc. to which the petitioner would have been enttled, had been promoted earlier to the date on which his juniors were promoted.” this Court would find difficult to interfere with the impugned order, inasmuch as, the claim of the petitioner to have been discriminated in the matter of promotion by his alleged juniors, namely, Ran Vijay Singh and Niwas Tiwary, cannot be looked into by this Court, inasmuch as, they are not made party to this writ application. Moreover, their such promotion was cancelled on 2.8.2001 and those order of cancellation of promotion still remains valid despite the fact that their writ application being CWJC No. 8424 of 2001 filed by Ran Vijay Singh and Sri Niwas Tiwary was allowed 2 only to extent of getting certain retirement benefit on the basis of such promotion. Thus the overemphasized reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on an order dated 30.6.2009 in C.W.J.C. No. 8424 of 2001 for establishing the aspect of discrimination is wholly misplaced, inasmuch as, their promotion was never upheld by this Court. It is a entirely different thing that this Court in their writ application had saved them from either recovery or the refunding monetary benefit of the the promotional post on account of their superannuation. Such personal relief granted to the aforementioned two persons in the order dated 30.6.2009 does not amount to laying down law, much less, a precedent for being followed for giving promotion to the petitioner. The promotion of the petitioner could have been only given if any junior to him had been given promotion and such order of promotion could have remained in existence. The promotional order of the two juniors, having been rescinded by the competent authority and not interfered by this Court in the order dated 30.6.2009 in CWJC No. 8424 of 2001, this Court would not find the case of the petitioner comparable with Ran Vijay Singh and Sri Niwas Tiwary for the purpose of his promotion. In any event the concept of equality before law and equal protection of law under Article 14 is a positive concept and cannot be enforced in a negative manner as has been held by the Apex Court in a number of decisions discussed and considered in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Upendra Narayan Singh reported in (2009) 5 S.C.C. 65. That being so, this Court would find no merit in this writ application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)