IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6637 of 1997 PRAMOD BAN BIHARI SINGH, S/O LATE VIHUNDEO SAHAY, R/O MOHALLA-MAGISTRATE COLONY, KHAJPUR POLICE STATION-SHASHTRINAGAR, DISTRICT-PATNA. ..............PETITIONER. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIATE, PATNA- 1. 2. COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY & PRIMARY EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIATE, PATNA-1. 3.SECRETARY-CUM-COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIATE, PATNA- 1. 4.DIRECTOR(ADMINISTRATION)-CUM-JOINT SECRETARY SECONDARY, PRIMARY AND ADULT EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA-1. ..............RESPONDENTS. ----------- 04/ 17.05.2011 Having heard counsel for the parties and taking into account that the impugned order dated 12.07.1997 is justified both in fact and in law, inasmuch as, the petitioner's promotion against the higher post of Special Director, Department of Education, Govt. of Bihar was not possible on account of strict observance of roster cum reservation as explained in the impugned order, this Court will have no other option but to hold that the petitioner is not entitled for the main relief confined to quashing of the impugned order and issuance of a direction for his promotion on the post of Special Director. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that since there were two post of Special Director and one of them was to be 2 filled up by an officer of rserved category, would necessarily mean that the the other unreserved post will have to be always filled up by an officer of general category has to be only noted for its being rejected. The promotion on a higher post by applying the principle of roaster and reservation has been correctly viewed by the authority, for holding that the turn of the petitioner for his promotion could have come only by taking into account the roaster on 01.10.1997, whereas had had already stood retired on 31.03.1981. In that view of the matter, while this Court will not interfere with the impugned order it would definitely take into account the other ancillary reliefs prayed by the petitioner, namely that he will still be entitled for allowance for officiating period from the date which he had worked on the post of Special Director i.e 23.02.1986 and till his retirement on 31.01.1987. Counsel for the State has got no objection in considering the case of the petitioner for grant of officiating allowance in terms of Rule 103 of the Bihar Service Code under which instructions have been issued for grant of 20% of basic highesr pay or Rs. 250/- per month whichever is less. In that view of the matter, this Court 3 would dispose of this writ application with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of Officiating Allowance strictly in accordance with law and decide the same within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It goes without saying that any financial benefit arising out of the aforementioned decision should also be extended by the competent authority to the petitioner within the same period of six months. With the aforementioned observations and direction, this application is disposed of. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha,J)