IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4065 of 2004 1. LALA PRASAD SHARMA S/O RTAM KISHUN SHARMA AT PRESENT POSTED AS GRADE IV POST IN THE OFFICE OF ROAD CONSTRUCTION DIVISION, HAJIPUR, VAISHALI 2. OME PRAKASH SAH S/O GIRDHAR GOPAL SAH AT PRESENT POSTED AS GRADE IV POST, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DIVISON HAJIPUR, VAISHALI 3. KAUSHAL KUMAR SINGH S/O LATE JAI DAYAN SINGH AT PRESENT POSTED AS GRADE IV POST, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DIVISION, HAJIPUR, VAISHALI. 4. RAM SHANKAR SINGH S/O LATE RAVI NANDAN SINGH,AT PRESENT POSTED AS GRADE IV POST, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DIVISION, HAJIPUR, VAISHALI 5. MOHAN LAL SHARMA S/O RAM KISHUN SHARMA AT PRESENT POSTED AS GRADE IV POST IN THE OFFICE OF ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, MAHNAR UNDER HAJIPUR DIVISION, VAISHALI----------------PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECY. ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR 2. THE ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF R.C.D. GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, RCD, SARAN CIRCLE, HAJIPUR, VAISHALI 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RCD, HAJIPUR, VAISHALI 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RCD,CHAPRA, SARAN 6. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RCD, SIWAN 7. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RCD, GOPALGANJ 8. RAM SHANKAR PD.SINGH AT PRESENT POSTED AS ACCOUNTS CLERK, RCD, GOPALGANJ 9. RAM NARESH RAM AT PRESENT POSTED AS ACCOUNTS CLERK RCD, SIWAN 10. K.P.YADAV AT PRESENT POSTED AS CORRESPONDENCE CLERK, RCD, SIWAN 11. RAM KESHWAR RAJAK AT PRESENT POSTED AS CORRESPONDENCE CLERK, RCD, GOPALGANJ 12. BIPIN KUMAR SINHA AT PRESENT POSTED AS CORRESPONDENCE CLERK, RCD, GOPALGANJ---RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the Petitioners: Mr. B.N.Tiwary, Advocate For the State: Mr. Shambhu Nath, AC to GP X ---------- 4 19.7.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioners are aggrieved by their non-promotion to Class III post despite them being senior vis-à-vis the private respondents. The question of seniority does not come into play in the matter of promotion to Class III post. It is to be filled up on the basis of limited competitive examination. Examinations were held. - 2 - Based on merit list the promotions have come to be made. It does not satisfy these petitioners. According to learned counsel for the petitioners as per annexure 3/1 there is something to indicate that more than five posts are available which were required to be filled up whereas the respondents have made appointment only on five posts and therefore they have been denied opportunity of promotion. The State in its counter affidavit have stated that as per circular only twenty five percent of the posts are made available to Class IV for promotion by competitive examination. Such position stands certified by the direction of the High Court in yet another dispute which was CWJC No. 5712 of 1992 and the order is dated 8.7.97. The said order is annexure-6 to the writ application. The State in its counter affidavit in para 10 has given a break up of the post which was to be filled up based on the availability of posts to the extent of twenty five percent for class IV employees at the circle. Promotion through limited competitive examination has come to be given. There is no infirmity and petitioners have no case. The facts that the petitioners had not figured in the merit is the only reason why they had not been given promotion in Class III post. Seniority claim is a misplaced kind of submission for seeking any direction upon the respondents to promote them. This writ application has no merit and it is dismissed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)