IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6858 of 1998 Kailash Pati Mishra, son of Late Uma Kant Mishra, resident of Village Kukroun-I, PS Kukroun –II, District Purnea, at present posted as Assistant in the wing of Gana Pul Pariyojana, Oopbhag,Road Construction Department, Vishwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna -1 ………..Petititioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. The Additional Secretary to the Government, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 4. The Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner- cum-Special Secretary,Road Construction Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna Mr. Awadh Lal, son of not known to the petitioner, at present posted as Section Officer, Road Construction Department, Vishwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna -1 5. Mr. Braj Bhushan Rai, son of not known to the petitioner, at present posted as Section Officer, Road Construction Department, Vishwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna -1 …….. Respondents ---------------------------------- 03- 15/12/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D K Sinha, learned Additional Advocate General No. II for respondents no. 1 to 4. The writ petition has been preferred for quashing the order by which the private respondents no. 5 and 6 have been given promotion to the post of Selection Grade Assistant, Senior Selection Grade as well as Section Officer from various dates. The petitioner had sought parity in the sense that he also claimed promotion from at least the dates from which the private respondents were given such promotions on the ground that he was senior to 2 them. Learned counsel for the State from the counter affidavit submits that the prayer is misconceived for the reason that in the year 1988 itself all the posts of Assistant in various departments were merged into a common cadre as per an Act of the State Government. According to him, in view of a joint cadre the promotion was given and the petitioner does not have any special right for such promotion basing his claim on the initial appointment in the department in which he may have been appointed. It has further been stated in the counter affidavit that the case for promotion of the petitioner was under active consideration but he clarifies also that this was as per the averments made in the counter affidavit which has been filed in the year 1999 and it may be presumed that the petitioner has also got benefit of the same. In view of the aforesaid, this Court feels that the stand taken by the respondents cannot be faulted. However, the petitioner will also be given his due in accordance with law and the rules prevalent. 2. The writ petition stands disposed off accordingly. mrl ( Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) 3