IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3902 of 2010 1. PRITNANDAN SINGH S/O SRIDHAR SINGH R/O VILL.- KATAIYAN, P.S.- PURNAHIYA, DISTT.- SHEOHAR, AT PRESENT POSTED AS CHOWKIDAR IN SITAMARHI DIVISION, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPTT. NORTH BIHAR CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPTT. BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE ENGINNER-INCHIEF-CUM-ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER-CUM-SPECIAL SECRETARY ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPTT. BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPTT. NORTH BIHAR, DARBHANGA 5. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPTT. NORTH BIHAR CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR 6. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPTT. ROAD DIVISION, SITAMARHI ----------- 2. 23.09.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner was appointed on a Class IV post and desires consideration for promotion on the post of Correspondence Clerk, a Class III post, against the 50 % quota meant for promotion from Class IV to Class III. He came to this Court in CWJC No. 2406 of 2009 disposed on 20.2.2009. The grievance was with regard to such promotion given to his juniors. The Court noticed that the pleadings were inadequate to uphold allegations of discrimination. It was observed that the claim for promotion should be raised by him before the authorities and which should be adjudicated and decided within six months, whether any person junior to him had been promoted and whether the 1986 decision for filling up 25 % Class III posts from Class IV employees had been kept open. Liberty was granted to file a fresh representation. The fresh order dated 19.8.2009 is presently assailed. Learned Counsel submits from the impugned order that initially the circular dated 11.2.1985 provided for 25 % promotional vacancy which was subsequently increased to 50 %. 2 There was no provision for a written examination in the 1985 circular. Considering that the petitioner has raised his claim for such promotion against the promotional quota before this Court for the first time in CWJC No. 2406 of 2009 this Court holds that what may or may not have been provided for in the circular of 1985 is hardly relevant when there have admittedly been fresh circular issued thereafter including on 6.12.1995 regulating such promotion. Learned Counsel next questions the recital in the impugned order that he had failed to appear for interview for such promotion in the year 1993. It is submitted that he was never informed nor was any notice published in the news paper or notice board of the office. This Court does not consider it necessary to go into those aspects raised 16 years later for the first time in the year 2009. For whatever the reason if the petitioner was not considered and he chose not to make a grievance out of it in time and in the intervening period fresh procedure and instructions have been issued this Court holds that any consideration today has to be only in accordance with the existing procedure i.e. circular no. 11243 dated 6.12.1995. The next submission is that those who were promoted on 9.7.1993 vide Annexure 5 were juniors and not required to undergo any interview process. That question is academic in view of the aforesaid discussions and the intervening developments. Promotions granted in 1993 cannot be urged as discriminatory in 2009. Delay steps in to deny relief. In any 3 event, if the rules required an interview and the order of promotion does not use the word interview it does not lead to an irresistible conclusion that no interview were held. Learned Counsel next submits that the circular dated 6.12.1995 essentially provides for procedure for direct appointment on Class III posts. It does not provide for holding of any written examination for promotion to the 50 % quota from Class IV to Class III. The promotional appointments are not the subject matter of the circular dated 6.12.1995. Counsel for the State submitted that circular dated 6.12.1995 expressly provides for a limited examination of Class IV employees for promotion against 50 % quota reserved for such appointment by promotion. This Court has perused the circular dated 6.12.1995. There can be no two interpretations of the language used in Clause (1) of the same. The appointment on 50% of the Class III posts should be made by direct recruits and remaining 50 % by promotion from Class IV. Clause (2) provides that the written examination both for direct recruitment and the promotional quota shall be conducted by the Bihar Public Service Commission and recommendations made by it. The notification then proceeds to divide the procedure for direct recruitment under the heading “procedure for direct recruitment” and the second part of the notification starts from Clause (15) which is preceded by the words “limited competitive examination for Class IV employees”. It then explicitly provides that promotion from Class IV to Class III against the 50 % quote meant for the same shall be filled up by a limited examination to be conducted by 4 the Bihar Public Service Commission once a year at each district centre. Clause (16) to (21) then provide the procedure to be followed till appointment by promotion. This Court therefore finds it difficult to grant any relief to the petitioner. He was unable to demonstrative positive discrimination in his writ petition on the earlier occasion. The situation is no better now. Any claim of the petitioner is therefore necessarily to be considered under circular dated 6.12.1995. If the petitioner appears at such examination and qualifies naturally he is required to be considered in accordance with law. This application is dismissed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)