IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2358 of 2001 KAILASH JHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 8/ 25/03/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner questions the order dated 8.1.2001 at annexure-9 by which he has been reverted from the post of Block Extension Educator to the post of a Non-medical Assistant. The petitioner was appointed as a non-medical assistant on 16.6.1977. In 1979 applications were invited for filling up the post of Block Extension Educator under the Family Welfare Department. In 1993 the petitioner claimed to have applied through proper channel when his name was recommended. The Civil Surgeon then appointed him as a Block Extension Educator in 1994. He was confirmed as such and given time-bound promotion on the post of Block Extension Educator in 1994. On 7.6.1994 he was reverted to his original post. He came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No.9141/94. It is his own case that this order was set aside on technicalities to proceed afresh in accordance with law. Fresh orders of reversion followed on 4.9.1998 questioned by the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No.11696/98 at annexure-6. It is 2 apparent from the order of this Court dated 26.8.1999 that the reversion order was again set aside on technicalities and not on merits when this Court required the petitioner to file a fresh show cause. In pursuance thereof the present order dated 8.1.2001 has been passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner places strong reliance on another order of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.10432/99 at annexure-10 preferred by another appointed as a Basic Health Worker and promoted and appointed to the post of Block Extension Educator by the Civil Surgeon and confirmed as such. From the discussions contained in the said order it is apparent that the issues therein were entirely different. The issues considered by this Court were the appointment on the post of Block Extension Educator when the necessary two years’ experience acquired on the job was a sufficient answer to the absence of the initial qualification. The second ground was that the grounds mentioned in the show cause notice and the final order of reversion were at variance with each other. The issue of promotion and appointment made to another cadre was neither raised or considered. In the present case, the impugned order states that the post of Block Extension Educator comes under 3 the Family Welfare Department Cadre. The petitioner, as noticed earlier, has himself stated so. The impugned order then goes on to state that any promotion to the next higher post of Block Extension Educator was a promotion within the cadre. The incumbent had, therefore, to belong to the Family Welfare Department Cadre. The petitioner was a non-medical assistant outside the cadre. His promotion and appointment, therefore, to a higher post outside the cadre was not in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been unable to satisfy this Court on the short question of law that the non-medical assistant was not a part of the cadre of the Family Welfare Department to which the post of Block Extension Educator belonged and promotions to the latter had to be made within the cadre itself. There is no merit in this writ application. It is accordingly dismissed. KC (Navin Sinha, J.)