IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2036 of 2000 VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- CWJC No.11179 of 2001 VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 11. 14.08.2008 Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner came to this Court earlier in CWJC No. 5990 of 1999 challenging an order dated 18.5.1999 reverting him to the post of Tracer from that of Draftsman Grade II and a consequent prayer for regularisation by promotion on the latter post. This Court by order dated 21.7.1999 allowed the writ application holding that the reversion was in violation of the principles of natural justice with liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with law. Thereafter fresh orders reverting him to the post of Tracer from that of Draftsman Grade II have been passed on 12.1.2000 presently assailed. The petitioner was appointed as Blue Printer on 10.9.1972. He was then promoted as Tracer on 11.7.1977. On 9.5.1978 he was provisionally promoted as Draftsman Grade II on a vacant post. This is where the controversy starts. Thereafter he was given the pay scale of Draftsman Grade II along with increments from time to time. The 4th Pay Revision Committee report led to enhancement of his pay scale followed by such enhancement with increments in accordance with 5th Pay Revision Committee report. This had the approval of the Department of Finance. All these facts have been noticed in detail in the order dated 10.4.2008 of this Court. In this manner the petitioner continued to discharge the duties of the Draftsman Grade II from 9.5.1978 till the impugned order dated 12.1.2000. From Para 15 of the counter affidavit of the respondents it appears that the petitioner has again been assigned the duties of Draftsman Grade II on 31.3.2007 though it is defended as a temporary and emergent measure in view of retirement of the earlier incumbent. The entire controversy with regard to the claim of the petitioner and the challenge to the impugned order is laid at rest by the supplementary counter affidavit. It states that the qualification for appointment on the post of Draftsman Grade II was a Diploma/Certificate holder of ITI which the petitioner did not hold. That the order dated 9.5.1978 only gave additional charge of Draftsman Grade II apart from his duties of Tracer to the petitioner but was not a promotion. The supplementary counter affidavit at Para 9 however concedes that the post of Draftsman Grade was a promotional avenue from the post of Tracer also for person having minimum experience of 5 – 8 years on the latter post. Para 16 of the supplementary counter affidavit in that view of the matter specifically acknowledges the eligibility of the petitioner to be considered for such promotion. The only appropriate order now to be passed is to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with their own stand of his eligibility after 5 – 8 years of working on the post of Tracer for promotion to the post of Draftsman Grade II Let such consideration be done within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order and appropriate orders in that regard be passed in accordance with law within the said period. CWJC No. 2036 of 2000 stands disposed. In so far as CWJC No. 11179 of 2001 is concerned, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the Department having withdrawn its own order the application has become infructuous. CWJC No. 11179 of 2001 is accordingly dismissed as infructuous. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)