1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8554 of 2004 MD.SHAKEEL ANSARI S/O LATE BUDHAN ALI R/O VILLAGE- MAHESHPUR, P.O. TEPRI, POLICE STATION- PIAR, DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR ………….Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, DEVELOPMENT SECRETARIAT, PATNA 3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, DEVELOPMENT SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 4. THE DISTRICT RURAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, PURNEA THROUGH DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER-CUM- CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, DISTRICT RURAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY PURNEA 5. THE DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER-CUM-CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, DISTRICT- RURAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, PURNEA 6. THE DIRECTOR, ACCOUNTS ADMINISTRATION AND SELF EMPLOYMENT, DISTRICT RURAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, PURNEA ………Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Gyanand Roy, Adv. : Mr. Sheo Nandan Mishra, Adv. For the State Respondents : Mr. S.P. Parasar, A-C to G.P. 21 ----------- 6. 01.07.2011 Heard the parties. This writ petition has been filed, inter alia, claiming the benefit of confirmation of the first time bound promotion in Junior Selection Grade Scale of pay, which was provisionally granted to the petitioner by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Purnea in his Memo No. 1221 dated 10.12.1997 and other related benefits. The claim of the petitioner is being resisted on the strength of letter dated 5.3.2005 contained in Annexure No.9 brought on record in terms of an 2 amendment petition filed on behalf of the petitioner, in essence, on three counts:- (A) The DRDA is not a permanent establishment and as such no time bound promotion is admissible (B) The petitioner has not passed his accounts examination, which is a mandatory requirement in terms of the Board Miscellaneous Rules, and (C) The petitioner has not passed Hindi noting and drafting examination which is conducted by the department. In course of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to various documents on record to show that he fulfils all the criteria and the objections in question are all misconceived. He refers to a letter dated 5.9.1989 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Government of Bihar in connection with the case of Sri Vishwanath Chowdhary, Assistant. It has been held therein that the Board Miscellaneous Rules are not applicable to the DRDA employees and in this view of the matter Sri Vishwanath Chowdhary was duly granted first time bound promotion after noticing that several other similarly situated persons who were serving with the 3 DRDA, Patna had already been granted such time bound promotion. Learned counsel for the respondents demonstrates from letter dated 2.6.2003 (Annexure-A to the counter affidavit) that the petitioner’s service book reveals that he has not passed accounts examination. However, this is of little moment in as much as the Board Miscellaneous Rules under which the accounts examination is a requisite are not applicable to employees of DRDA as stated above. In any view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner also invites attention to Annexure-2 of the writ petition which establishes that the petitioner has successfully taken training in accounts management during January, 1989. Learned counsel for the petitioner further refers to the letter of the respondent DRDA, Patna itself dated 11.4.1996 (Annexure-7) whereby second time bound promotion has been granted to Sri Srinivas Prasad. Yet again he refers to the order of the DRDA, Kishanganj dated 7.6.1994 Annexure 7/1 by which Sri Radha Krishna Jha, Assistant has already been granted first time bound promotion. 4 He also submits that grant of such time bound promotion by the DRDA at various locations and indeed even acknowledged in the State Government letter (Annexure-3), itself intrinsically establishes that the DRDA is in the nature of a permanent establishment. He then refers to the last objection, relating to non-passing of the Hindi Noting and Drafting examination. Learned counsel for the petitioner invites attention to the respondent DRDA, Purnea, letter dated 30.11.2004 (Annexure-8) wherein the Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer has himself acknowledged that the petitioner has duly passed Hindu Noting and Drafting Examination held in July, 1987 and stands endorsed in the service book of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent raises objection that this document has been brought on record subsequently by the petitioner. However, it transpires from the order dated 24.5.2007 that specific opportunity was granted to the respondent to seek instructions and file an affidavit in reply to I.A. No. 5 3009 of 2007 which has not been done even after a lapse of four years. In any event, the nature of the document relied upon by the petitioner is essentially a document to be found of the respondent’s own record and not any external evidence. Besides, the letter dated 30.11.2004 also finds mention in the impugned order dated 5.3.2005 itself (Annexure-9) and as such the genuineness thereof cannot be doubted. In the above view of the matter, therefore, this court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to confirmation of the first time bound promotion with consequential benefits. The reasons contained in the impugned order dated 5.3.2005 as contained in Annexure-9 are clearly misconceived and unsustainable and the said order is accordingly quashed. The respondent no. 5 is directed to give effect to this order expeditiously preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order. Fahad. ( Vikash Jain, J. )