IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10473 of 2005 ARUN KUMAR SINHA, son of Late Jai Nandan Prasad, resident of Kashipur, Jai Nandan Niwas, Ward No. 12, P. S. Samastipur, District- Samastipur … Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Sichai Bhawan, Patna. 3. The Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Sichai Bhawan, Patna. 4. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Samastipur. 5. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Muzaffarpur. 6. The Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Department, Flood Control Circle, Samastipur. … Respondents ----------- 4. 18.01.2010 Heard Mr. Sitesh Chandra Mitra, counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- (i) for quashing Office order No. 46 dated 6.7.2005 as contained in Memo No. 2172, dated 6.7.2005 issued under the Signature of the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Samastipur (resp. no. 4) by which the representation of the petitioner dated 25.5.2005, pursuant to the Court’s order dated 4.5.2005 in CWJC No. 4231 of 2002 for promotion of the petitioner to the sanctioned post of Junior Selection Grade in the cadre of Steno-Typists w.e.f. 1.4.1981 and to Senior Selection Grade post against sanctioned post from 1.4.1984 after wait period (Kalawadhi) of three years, has been rejected, without dealing with 2 the various contentions in the said representation in support of his claim. ii) For a further direction to grant promotion to the petitioner in Junior Selection Grade w.e.f. 1.4.1981 against sanctioned post and to Senior Selection Grade post against sanctioned post in the cadre of Steno-Typists w.e.f. 1.4.1984. iii) For granting promotion to the petitioner to Super-time scale, if admissible, with effect from any date in 1993- 94.” Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order is of the view that the Chief Engineer while passing the impugned order has not applied himself to the facts of the case of the petitioner inasmuch as it is an admitted fact that in the cadre of stenographer that there were 18 posts out of which 20 percent was meant for junior selection grade, 121/2 percent in senior selection grade and 21/2 percent in supertime scale which according to him on calculation will make four posts in the junior selection grade, two in senior selection grade and one in Supertime scale. Counsel for the petitioner in this context has also drawn attention of this 3 court to the seniority list dated 17.5.2004 to show that in the year 2004, the petitioner was senior most in the cadre of steno typist and as such the respondents instead of granting him first time bound promotion w.e.f. 13.3.1982 ought to have give promotion to him in the junior selection grade w.e.f. 1.4.1981 against aforesaid sanctioned posts. Mr. Mitra on being asked as to whether any junior to him as on 1.4.1981 or even thereafter had been given promotion in the junior selection grade w.e.f. 1.4.1981 could not cite any example. He however has relied on an order of one Maheshwar Prasad Shrivastava (Annexure-21) which would go to show that he was also not given promotion in junior selection grade w.e.f. 1.4.1981 rather he was given the promotion as senior steno- typist which cannot be equated with the promotion in junior selection grade. Admittedly, Maheshwar Prasad Shrivastava was senior to the petitioner and he was not given such promotion in junior selection grade. This Court would therefore find that prayer of the petitioner for grant of promotion 4 w.e.f. 1.4.1981 in junior selection grade is wholly preposterous and have no legs to stand either on facts or in law. A person cannot claim promotion as a matter of right. The moment in a cadre someone junior to the incumbent is given promotion of higher posts in higher pay-scale the right of senior definitely emerges but merely because a post was available which could not be filled up by way of promotion would not give any one a right to claim such promotion as a matter of right. It is actually for this purpose that the concept of time bound promotion was introduced by the government resolution dated 30.12.1981 for removing the anomaly of stagnation suffered by a person on account of not getting the regular promotion. The said Resolution of State Government by accepting the recommendation of Pay Revision Committee therefore had envisaged that if a person having entered in his service had not been given any promotion in 10 years, he would be entitled for first time bound promotion. The petitioner was admittedly given such time 5 bound promotion w.e.f. 13.3.1982. Therefore, the petitioner could not have claimed even subsequently grant of regular promotion in the junior selection grade as a matter of right. The reasoning given in the impugned order therefore assumes significance wherein Chief Engineer having made the review of the cadre has found that as on 1.4.1981 the cadre of steno typist was demerged and separated from the post of correspondence clerk and typist only in the year 1983 in the departmental letter no. 391 dated 21.1.1983. In that view of the matter, if the authority has found that the petitioner was not entitled for grant of time bound promotion w.e.f. 1.4.1981 no error can be found in the same. The next submission of Mr. Mitra that an employee entitled for junior selection grade promotion on completion of three years period would automatically be entitled for grant of promotion in senior selection grade is equally misconceived. The waiting period (kalawadhi) is the minimum period fixed for such consideration and again 6 cannot be equated by way of time bound promotion. There is no rule which requires the Government to grant promotion in senior selection grade merely on completion of the period of three years in junior selection grade. The ‘Kalawadhi’ as introduced by the Government prescribed only the minimum period of service after which one may be considered for promotion but has altogether a different concept than the time bound promotion. In that view of the matter, the claim of the petitioner earning promotion in junior selection grade from 1.4.1981 and in the senior selection grade from 1.4.1984 was rightly rejected and that part of the impugned order would need no interference from this Court. As to what could be the next date of promotion of the petitioner in junior selection grade/ senior selection grade even according to Mr. Mitra had remained only under active consideration of the department. A guideline in this regard from Water Resources Department was sought by the concerned Chief Engineer but the same till date has not been decided. 7 That being so, it would be open for the petitioner to claim his promotion in junior selection grade but this Court must make it clear that the same cannot be on any date prior to his passing the departmental examination. The plea of Mr. Mitra that in fact such departmental examination could not have stood as a bar, petitioiner’s first time bound promotion will again be looked into by the authorities and if it is found that the petitioner was wrongly given even time bound promotion without passing the departmental examination, the same will be remoulded and reconstructed for its being shifted from 1982 to 1987. As two wrongs would never make one right and therefore when the petitioner was given an inadmissible promotion in the time bound promotion w.e.f. 13.3.1982, that cannot mean that Government rule requiring grant of promotion to an incumbent only in the event of his passing the departmental enquiry could be waived in the case of the petitioner. Considering all these aspects, this court would only direct the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner for 8 grant of junior selection grade/senior selection grade only w.e.f. due date and of course after the date of passing the departmental examination. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this writ application is disposed of. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)