IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8484 of 2009 BRAJ KISHORE SINGH, SON OF RAM BRIKSH SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE P.O. MAJHAULI, P.S.- LALGANJ, DISTRICT VAISHALI AT HAZIPUR AT PRESENT OFFICIATING HEAD ASSISTANT IN THE OFFICE OF STATE FOOD CORPORATION, CHAPRA. ... ... PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED, SONE BHAWAN, BIR CHAND PATEL PATH, PATNA, THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BIHAR STATE FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED, SONE BHAWAN, BIR CHAND PATEL PATH, PATNA. 3. THE CHIEF OF ADMINISTRATION, BIHAR STATE FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED, SONE BHAWAN, BIR LCHAND PATEL PATH, PATNA. 4. THE DISTRICT MANAGER, STATE FOOD CORPORATION, CHAPRA. ... ... RESPONDENTS. ----------- 4. 30.10.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Bihar State Food Corporation Ltd. Petitioner was initially appointed as a Class-IV Peon in the Corporation, presently he is officiating as an Assistant. It is submitted on his behalf that ignoring his better claim those who were appointed as daily wager on Class-IV post later namely, Akshyabar pandey and Uday Shankar have been promoted as Assistants ignoring the better claim of the petitioner and having learnt of such illegality petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ - 2 - petition to direct the respondent Corporation to consider his case for promotion on the post of Assistant as two others namely, M/S Akshyabar Pandey and Uday Shankar have already been so promoted. Counsel for the Corporation with reference to the pleadings made on behalf of the Corporation states that it is true that M/S Akshyabar Pandey and Uday Shankar were appointed as a Class-IV employee in the Corporation on daily wage basis after the petitioner but thereafter in 1986 and later under office order bearing Memo No.2809 dated 22.6.1999 (Annexure-E to the supplementary counter affidavit) have been appointed as a regular Sales Man and appreciating their appointment as regular Sales Man with effect from 22.6.1999 they have been given promotion on the post of Assistant. In rejoinder, counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was appointed as a regular Sales Man under order bearing Memo No.4332 dated 2.5.1990 and such statement has been made in paragraph-5 of the writ petition but no order promoting the petitioner as regular Sales Man has been - 3 - placed on record. Counsel for the Corporation at this stage pointed out that the order promoting the petitioner as regular Sales Man was later cancelled which fact is even admitted by the counsel for the petitioner and statement to that effect has been made in paragraph-6 of the writ petition but thereafter it is submitted that petitioner was asked to officiate as an Assistant and on the basis of his officiation as Assistant petitioner is claiming seniority over the aforesaid two persons namely, Akshyabar Pandey and Uday Shankar. Having heard counsel for the parties, I am of the view that while considering the case of M/S Akshyabar pandey and Uday Shankar for promotion on the post of Assistant the case of the petitioner has not been considered accordingly I direct the the petitioner to file a detailed representation before the respondent Corporation stating in the representation in clear terms as to how he is senior M/S Akshyabar pandey and Uday Shankar annexing the relevant order with the representation which the Managing Director - 4 - N.H./ should consider and pass reasoned order taking into account the claim of the petitioner vis a vis M/S Akshyabar Pandey and Uday Shankar as early as possible in any case within two months from the date of receipt of the representation. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. ( V.N. Sinha,J.)