IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7741 of 2010 1. Rajendra Prasad S/O Late Lalo Mahto R/O Vill.- Chulihari, P.S.- Asthama In The District Of Nalanda Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary Home Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 2. The Principal Secretary Home Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 3. The Inspector General, Prison Govt. Of Bihar, Patna ----------- 4. 13.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner, an Assistant Jailor is aggrieved by the order dated 26.3.2010 which denies him promotion to the post of Jailor holding that he may be considered after expiry of the duration of the punishment given to him on 2.3.2010. Learned counsel submits from the impugned order itself that his case was considered for promotion first on 5.2.2008 and again on 4.3.2008. On both occasions it was deferred for reasons of non availability of his character rolls, a document in the exclusive possession of the respondents themselves. In this manner the consideration of his case was itself unreasonably denied for no fault of the petitioner himself. The respondents therefore cannot take advantage of any charge sheet or proceedings drawn up against him on 13.3.2009 which was an event subsequent. In the meantime his juniors 2 whose character rolls were available have been considered on 5.2.2008 and 4.3.2008 and granted promotion in pursuance of the same on 11.3.2008. Counsel for the State submits that the case of the petitioner was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee after receipt of his character rolls on 28.10.2009. By that time departmental proceedings had been initiated against him on 13.2.2009 and therefore the impugned order passed. It is true that his juniors have been promoted but that was on account of their character rolls having been received in time. That the petitioner may have gone in Appeal against the order of punishment dated 2.3.2010 is not relevant for the present controversy. The right to be considered for promotion necessarily entails a timely consideration of the same. If the petitioner had been considered on 5.2.2008 or 4.3.2008, undoubtedly he would have been found fit for promotion as the impugned order mentions no other ground. The delay in consideration was attributable to the respondents alone in not placing his character roll, a document in their custody. They cannot be permitted to take advantage of their own wrong to deny relief to the 3 petitioner. To hold otherwise would only encourage favoritism and nepotism when character rolls of the unfortunate shall be withheld and character rolls of the favoured few shall be forwarded. Charge sheet has been issued against the petitioner only subsequently on 13.3.2009. The Court therefore holds that the petitioner is entitled to be considered for promotion from the date that his immediate junior has been promoted. Let such consideration be done and appropriate orders passed within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands allowed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)