IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12886 of 2000 HIRA LAL PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 5. 21.08.2008 Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner makes a grievance to shift the date of his promotion on the post of Havildar from the date that his juniors have been granted benefit of the same as also to the post of Sub Inspector of Police and grant of time bound promotion. It is his case that he belongs to Gond tribe which is a Scheduled Tribe as per notification issued by the Government of India. That he was appointed on 6.11.1971 as Constable in the quote meant for Scheduled Tribe and his service book also mentions his caste as Gond. However, the respondents insist on treating him as general category candidate. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It seeks to urge that the petitioner cannot be a Gond tribe which is not found in Siwan district but he may be Gaur. That he was initially appointed as Constable as a general candidate and his caste as Gond has not been written in his service records, for which the extract of the register of the medical examination of the candidates at the time of appointment is sought to be relied upon. From the extract of the medical admission register itself it is apparent that the petitioner has been described as “Gond”. It is difficult to visualize recording of his caste status at the time of medical examination for appointment without a relevant caste certificate. The respondents clearly have filed their counter affidavit on assumption and presumption. This Court on 25.4.2008 had required the respondents to produce the original service book of the petitioner noticing the submission in the rejoinder to the counter affidavit specifically in Para 5 that his status as Scheduled Tribe of Gond category was duly recorded in the service book and therefore it was fallacious to contend that the caste status of the petitioner had not been disclosed at the time of appointment. The service book has not been produced in original. The Court therefore draws an adverse inference. The controversy sought to be created by the respondents between Gond and Gaur also stands clarified by the recent notification of the State Government dated 28.2.2007 that all such reference to Gond, Gaur or Gonr shall appropriately mean Gond only. Nothing survives now for adjudication on the issue of caste status, specially when the respondents have chosen not to deny the specific assertion of the petitioner in the writ petition and the rejoinder to the counter affidavit of his service records, when original service records have not been produced despite directions of the Court. The writ application has to be allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of second time bound promotion, substantive promotion to the post of Havildar and Sub Inspector of Police from the date that his juniors have been promoted. Let such consideration on all three counts be done within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. In the facts and circumstances of the case this Court also considers it proper to direct specifically that the petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential monetary benefits in pursuance of such date of promotion to be fixed by the respondents which this Court is satisfied has been wrongly denied to the petitioner. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)