IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.134 of 2009 RAJ KUMAR SINGH SON OF LATE RAM BAHADUR SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- MITHAULI, P.S.- RAHIKA, P.O.- JAGATPUR VIA- RAHIKA, DISTRICT- MADHUBANI…………………..APPELLANT Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA 2. THE DIRECTOR, HEALTH SERVICES, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE CIVIL SURGEON-CUM-CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, DISTRICT- MADHUBANI 4. THE MEDICAL OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, ADDITIONAL PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, SIMRI (BISFI), DISTRICT- MADHUBANI 5. THE TREASURY OFFICER, DISTRICT- MADHUBANI ……………….RESPONDENTS. ----------- 9 16/11/2009 Heard the parties and perused the order under appeal dated 12.9.2008 whereby the writ court dismissed the writ petition and declined to interfere with the impugned order dated 30.11.2004 whereby the petitioner was reverted back to class IV post on the basis of findings that the promotion given to him by the Civil Surgeon on a technical post of Dresser was by violating the rules because promotion was granted from another cadre consisting of grade IV post in the Madhubani Collectorate and it was done in violation of all rules of promotion, reservation etc. On going through the orders annexed as Annexures-A and B to the counter affidavit, we find that the order granting him promotion to the post of Dresser conceals the facts that the petitioner was not a Dresser but a grade IV employee in the Collectorate. The order 2 wrongly describes him as Dresser, Trained. In the facts of the case, we find no good reason to interfere with the impugned order reverting the petitioner back to the grade IV post. However, learned counsel for the appellant has confined his submissions mainly against the observation in the order under appeal that if the respondents decide to recover monetary benefits already given then they shall recover only 50 per cent from the appellant and rests shall be recovered from the salary or pension of the person who illegally promoted the appellant. We find no whisper of any proposal by the respondents of making any recovery from the appellant or anybody else. Considering the entire facts and circumstances and the fact that appellant actually worked on the promoted post to earn the salary, we are of the view that there is no requirement of any observation as made by the writ court. With this clarification, the appeal is dismissed. (Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ.) (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.) avin