IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.841 of 2011 Mohan Kumar Verma, son of Late Triveni Prasad, resident of Mohalla-Shantinagar, P.S.-Sitamarhi, District- Sitamarhi. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Commissioner-cum-Principal Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Secretary, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Bihar, Patna. 5. The Deputy Secretary, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna. 6. The Divisional Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur. 7. The District Magistrate, Sheohar. ----------- 2. 12.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. The appellant preferred a writ petition earlier in the year 2009 raising a grievance that no appropriate decision was being taken by the competent authority on the recommendation for promotion to the post of Personal Assistant to the District Magistrate, Sheohar made by a Selection Committee headed by the Commissioner, Tirhut Division vide Memo No.147 dated 29.04.2003 and the writ petition was disposed of on 09.02.2010 with a direction to the respondents to take appropriate decision in the matter within three months. From the materials on record, it is evident that 2 after the direction of this Court vide order dated 9.02.2010, the Selection Committee was again convened and it did not recommend the name of the appellant for the promotion in question on account of a communication made by the District Magistrate, Sheohar in 2006 whereby recommendation in favour of the petitioner’s case was withdrawn with intimation that his work was not found satisfactory and hence, he had been transferred out of the confidential section of D.M’s office. On behalf of the appellant, it has been submitted that the District Magistrate acted arbitrarily and malafide and in any case once a recommendation was made by the Committee, it could not have reconsidered the earlier recommendation of petitioner’s name and withdrawn the same after lapse of seven years. The appellant continues to hold the post of Stenographer attached to the office of the District Magistrate, Sheohar. An employee has limited rights in matters of promotion. Earlier District Magistrate, Sheohar had forwarded appellant’s case favourably, but if on account of certain developments in the meantime, another communication was received from District Magistrate, 3 Sheohar in 2006, that could not have been ignored or overlooked when the promotion matter was again considered by the competent committee. Till promotion is actually granted, any material relevant for promotion has to be taken into account. In such circumstances, it is difficult to hold that any legal right of the writ petitioner/appellant has been violated. We find no good reason to interfere with the view taken by the Writ Court. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. V.K. Pandey (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)