IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2751 of 2010 1. UMA SHANKAR PRASAD SINGH S/O LATE LAKHAN SINGH R/O VILL- SARKATI PO- JALALPUR, P.S KASHICHAK, DISTT- NAWADA, AT PRESENT WORKING AS CONDUCTOR, BIHAR STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BIHARSHARIF (DEPO), BIHARSHARIF, DISTT- NALANDA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR-CUM-ADMINISTRATOR, BIHAR STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, SULTAN PLACE, BIRCHAND PATEL MARG, PATNA 2. THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER, BIHAR STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION SULTAN PLACE, R-BLOCK, PATNA 3. THE DIPO SUPRIENTENDENT BIHAR STATE AND TRANSPORT CORPORATION, RANCHI ROAD, BIHARSHARIF, NALANDA ----------- 2. 11.03.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner is serving as a Conductor in the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “Corporation”) He has filed this writ application for a direction to the Corporation to consider his case for promotion/appointment on the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector in the light of the panel which was prepared by the authorities of the Corporation after notice to the eligible employees of the Corporation to appear in the interview in the year 1988 and the said panel is contained in Annexure-1 to this application. In this connection petitioner has also filed representation dated 16.12.2009, Annexure-2 and it is submitted that the same has not been considered till date. 3. Counsel for the Corporation has opposed the prayer. He states that the panel was prepared in the year 1988 and none from the said panel has been appointed/promoted as Assistant Traffic Inspector except one who had approached the labour Court and an award was passed in his favour and in compliance of the award the awardee was appointed as Assistant Traffic Inspector. He further submits that petitioner should not be allowed to - 2 - maintain this writ petition as he has approached this Court after about 21 years of the publication of the panel and there is no proof that the representations said to have been filed by the petitioner including the representation dated 16.12.2009, Annexure-2 has been received in the office of the Corporation. 4. Counsel for the petitioner in rejoinder submitted that he has been filing representation from time to time and the last representation he has annexed is dated 16.12.2009, Annexure-2 and he has approached this Court only when he has come to learn that the authorities are not inclined to consider his representation for appointment as Assistant Traffic Inspector. The receipts of the representation may not be available with the petitioner as the representations were handed over in the office of the competent authority. 5. Having heard counsel for the petitioner and the Corporation, I direct that the petitioner should furnish a fresh copy of the representation dated 16.12.2009, Annexure-2 as also the earlier representations to the Administrator within one month from today and the same should be considered by the Administrator in accordance with law in the light of the panel, Annexure-1, as early as possible, in any case within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the representation along with a copy of this order. 6. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)