IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12141 of 2003 KANHAI PRASAD LALL SON OF LATE BAIDYANATH PRASAD LALL, PRESENTLY WORKING AS ASSISTANT MANAGER ( ACCOUNTS)/ DY. MANAGER ( INTERNAL AUDIT & P.V.) ON DEPLOYMENT, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE, SITUATED IN ARUNACHAL BHAWAN, EXHIBITION ROAD, TOWN PATNA, PS KOTWALI, DISTT. PATNA. Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA ( THROUGH THE MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION, KRISHI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI8 110 001. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, OFFICE SITUATED AT 16-20, BARAKHAMBA LANE, NEW DELHI 110 001. 3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, OFFICE SITUATED AT 16-20, BARAKHAMBA LANE, NEW DELHI 110 001. 4. THE ZONAL MANAGER ( EAST), FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, OFFICE SITUATED AT 10A, MIDDLETON ROW, KOLKATA 700 071 5. THE SR. REGIONAL MANAGER, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, OFFICE SITUATED AT ARUNACHAL BHAWAN, EXHIBITION ROAD, PATNA 800 001 6. SHRI K. HEMAGIRI RAO SON OF NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, C/O ZONAL MANAGER (SOUTH) FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, 3 HADDLOWS ROAD, CHENNAI- 600006 7. SHRI K. RAMAN, SON OF NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, C/O ZONAL MANAGER ( SOUTH) FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, 3 HADDLOWS ROAD, CHENNAI- 600006. 8. SHRI K. RAMANUJAN SON OF NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER C/O ZONAL MANAGER ( SOUTH) FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, 3 HADDLOWS ROAD, CHENNAI- 600006. ----------- 4/ 23-06-2009 The petitioner was asked to officiate as Assistant Manager (Accounts) against a vacancy in the year 1978. Petitioner was then given substantive promotion to the said post in the year 1982. Petitioner claims that his date of substantive promotion should be propounded to the date when he was given charge. Learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly states that so far as this promotional avenue is concerned, the - 2 - vacancies are to be fixed by direct recruits promotion. The vacancies are allotted accordingly and the roster is there. In my view, in absence of a specific pleading that vacancies for promotee were available in the year 1978 when he was asked to officiate on the said post, petitioner cannot lay any claim for substantive promotion from that date. There was a vacancy which cannot be disputed because petitioner was made to officiate but obviously in absence of any specific pleading as noticed above, no benefit can be granted by this court to the petitioner. The writ petition is thus misconceived and dismissed as such. ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J ) BTiwary/