IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3094 of 2010 1. GIRISH CHANDRA SHUKLA S/O LATE SUSHIL CHAND SHUKLA R/O SHUKLA HOUSE PARK ROAD, P.S.- KADAM KUAN, DISTT.- PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE SECRETARY, AGRICULTURE DEPTT. NEW SECRATARIAT, VIKAS BHAWAN, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE. DIRECTORATE OF AGRICULTURE NEW SECRATARIAT, VIKAS BHAWAN, PATNA 4. THE DIRECTOR (HORTICULTURE), DIRECTORATE OF HORTICULTURE, AGRICULTURE DEPTT., MAIN SECRETARIAT, PATNA 5. THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY AGRICULTURE DEPTT., NEW SECRETARIAT, VIKAS BHAWAN, PATNA ----------- 2. 30.08.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. A counter affidavit is stated to have been filed on behalf of the State on 28.8.2010. The same is not available on the record. The Court therefore requested Counsel for the State to make available his copy for perusal so as not to hold up the proceeding on that ground. The office is directed to trace the counter affidavit and place the same on record. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 18.9.2006/21.9.2006 which withdraws stay of operation of order for cancellation of promotion dated 10.5.2001 confining its application to only those who had moved the Court for grant of appropriate relief only, earlier applied uniformly to all vide memo no. 3076 dated 31.7.2001 by the respondents themselves. The petitioner was a Horticulture Inspector. He was promoted to the post of Sub Divisional Horticulture Officer by order dated 14.10.1999 with effect from 23.7.1998. A show cause notice was issued on 5.1.2001 for certain alleged irregularities in grant of promotion leading to order of cancellation of promotion enmasse dated 10.5.2001 on the 2 ground that roster clearance had not been obtained, certain officers had not completed the time period as Horticulture Inspector only after which they could have been considered for promotion, the Promotion Committee was not properly constituted. It is submitted that the order of cancellation dated 10.5.2001 was questioned by certain others also promoted as Sub Divisional Horticulture Officer. In pursuance of interim orders granted by the Court the respondents issued an uniform order on 31.7.2001 staying operation of the order dated 10.5.2001 cancelling the promotion uniformally applicable to all who were promoted. Subsequently when it was sought to be confined to the writ petitioners alone certain others similarly situated came to this Court in CWJC No. 12619 of 2006. A Bench of this Court noticed from the counter affidavit that no allegation of the nature alleged in the order dated 10.5.2001 had been urged therein holding that there was no justification for cancellation of their promotion. In the present case also the counter affidavit does not set out any ground or the manner in which the roster clearance had been violated so as to vitiate promotion granted to the present petitioner or that he did not complete the specified time period as a Horticulture Inspector to be considered for the post of Sub Divisional Horticulture Officer. There is no statement of the manner in which the promotion committee was to be constituted and what deviation had taken place from it. These are only three grounds taken in para 9 of the counter affidavit in so far as the petitioner is concerned. The counter affidavit is extremely casual 3 and perfunctory fulfilling the formality of only filing a formal reply before this Court not appreciating seriousness of matters pending in this Court for adjudication. Para 14 of the counter affidavit distinguishes the case of the petitioner only on the ground that he was not one of the persons who had challenged cancellation of his promotion in the writ petition and therefore any interim order in those writ petition had to remain confined to the petitioners therein alone. The casualness of the respondents seems to be aimed more at generating litigation on issues similarly circumstanced rather than assisting the court by proper defence to pass an adjudicatory order. On consideration of the counter affidavit of the respondents this Court holds that it is no specific material urged to demonstrate that there has been any illegality in the case of the petitioner in promotion as the respondents have been unable to substantiate the order dated 10.5.2001 before this Court on a challenge laid out by the petitioner. This Court therefore holds that the order of cancellation dated 10.5.2001 does not affect the promotion of the petitioner and that the order dated 18.9.2006/21.9.2006 in so far as petitioner is concerned stands vitiated in view of the order dated 31.7.2001 passed by the respondents themselves. The writ application stands allowed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)