IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11114 of 2010 1. Ram Chandra Prasad S/O Late Sheo Charan Mahto R/O Vill Haril Bigha, P.O.Aznaura, P.S.Noorsarai, Distt-Nalanda Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department Government Of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 3. The Director -Cum-Joint Secretary, Human Resources Development Department Government Of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna ----------- 3. 29.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 22.1.2010 which rejects his claim for promotion to the Bihar Education Service Class-II from 1.2.1990. The petitioner came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 10219 of 2009 aggrieved by promotion to the Bihar Education Service Class-II with effect from 1.1.1998 under notification dated 13.2.2009. He alleged eligibility for promotion from 1.2.1990, the date of his confirmation. He also alleged discrimination inasmuch as others had been granted such promotion from the date of their confirmation. The order of the Court does not notice any names or details of such persons. The petitioner was permitted to represent highlighting the aspect of discrimination before the respondents. The petitioner has not enclosed any 2 representation that he may have submitted after the order of the Court. The writ petition also does not mention the submission of any such representation. The impugned order dated 22.1.2010 also does not refer to any representation submitted by the petitioner. It proceeds to reject his claim by a reasoned order holding that vacancies became available from 1.1.1998 only and that no person junior to him had been promoted prior to the same. The writ petition for the first time appears to be raising an allegation of discrimination by identifying certain persons as detailed in Paragraph-7 of the pleadings vis-à-vis the position of the petitioner in the gradation list and the others promoted. The counter affidavit at Paragraph-10 reiterates that no one junior to the petitioner in the general category had been promoted prior to 1.1.1998. Paragraph-19 explains that one of them named in the writ petition Shri Shankar Das at serial 1445 belonged to the reserved category. Dealing with the rest of the assertion with regard to person at serial nos. 1292, 1316, 1341, 1355, 1363, 1394 and 1303, the counter affidavit at Paragraph- 18 only states that the grievance of the petitioner is 3 based upon misconception. Neither the petitioner nor the respondents have made any disclosure with regard to the category of the aforesaid persons and how they were similarly situated as alleged by the petitioner or were differently situated as per the respondents. The allegation of discrimination is primarily a question of fact. The factual assertions first have to be made with clarity. It does not appear that the petitioner has done so in pursuance of the order of the Court in C.W.J.C. No. 10219 of 2009. Presumably for that reason the impugned order dated 22.1.2010 also generally denies his claim. The situation is no better from the pleadings in the writ application and the counter affidavit. In absence of necessary details of the others named, their category and how they were situated differently from the petitioner or not, the Court finds it difficult to adjudicate whether the allegations of discrimination were right or wrong If the petitioner represents with full and proper details of the persons below him in the gradation list, who had been granted promotion from the date of their confirmation making out a clear case of arbitrariness and discrimination, let 4 the respondents consider the same and dispose it off by a reasoned and speaking order within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)