Judgment G.G. Bharuka, J. The present application has been filed by the sale petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus against respondent no. 4 commanding upon him to consider the case of the petitioner for his promotion from class IV to class III post. Respondent no. 4 is the Principal of Darbhanga Medical College, Laheria Sarai. Respondent nos. 1 to 3 are the State of Bihar and its officers. Respondent no. 5 is an employee of the Darbhanga Medical College in respect of whom a plea of discrimination has been raised. 2. At the very outset I am to state that no counsel has come forward to represent the case either on behalf of the State or its officers or the respondent Principal or the private respondent. The Junior counsel to the Advocate General has stated that they have no file in their possession and they are unable to represent the State. However, Mr. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 4, has stated that his client has taken away the papers from him and he has no instruction in this case. 3. The short facts involved in the present case are that on 12.8.1957 the petitioner was appointed as Darwan in Darbhanga Medical College and his appointment was confirmed with effect from 1.3.1961, as it appears from Annexure-1. The petitioner further claims that in the year 1974 he had passed Nawin Madhyama, which is equivalent to matriculation as per circular issued by the Education Department. Then in 1978 he become a trained typist and a certificate to this effect has been granted to him by Tirhut Institute of Commerce (Annexure-3 to the writ application) By Annexure-4, which is dated 26.10.1981, the petitioner was given the selection grade. On these facts, the claim of the petitioner is that he became entitled to the promotion to class III employment. In support of his Claim he has also asserted in the writ application that there are clear Government instructions in this regard and in view of the Government instructions and the practice followed by the respective departments including the University and the colleges run under it, the petitioner, in law, bad acquired a right to be considered for his promotion to the selection post in grade III. The further case of the petitioner' is that though in the year 1981 the post of the clerk technician had fallen vacant in grade III and the petitioner was competent to hold that post but still malafidely ignoring his claim, the same has been given to respondent no. 5, who is junior to him. Aggrieved by such illegal act of respondent no. 4, the petitioner filed representations before respondent no. 4 as well as Chief Minister. The representations are Annexures 5 and 6 to the writ application. From the representation, filed before the Chief Minister; it appears that directions had been endorsed on the representation itself that the case of the petitioner should be considered in accordance with law but none of these representations seems to have been considered and the grievance of the petitioner remained unattended till this date. 4. No counter affidavit has been filed in the present case so as to controvert any of the facts stated above. In view of these facts, it is clear that the petitioner has been subjected to hostile discrimination and great injustice has been done to him. It is worth mentioning that the petitioner has served the institution for more than 30 years. 5. Under the facts and circumstances indicated above, I feel pursuaded to direct respondent no. 4 to consider the case of the petitioner for his promotion to class III post forthwith against any vacancy if existing or otherwise as and when it falls vacant. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case it is apparent that the petitioner has been deprived of his legal and legitimate right of promotion to a class III post, which had fallen due to him as far back as in the year 1981 and because of the said deprivation of his right, the petitioner has been made to suffer heavy financial loss and mental torture. Therefore, I feel that a poor person like the petitioner, who has served the institution for about 30 years with all sincerities and unblemished career, should be suitably and appropriately compensated for his sufferings. According to the calculation given by the learned counsel for the petitioner because of non-consideration of the case of the petitioner for his promotion at the due time, he had been made to suffer a pecuniary Joss of more than Rs.30,000/-. According to the calculation given by the learned counsel for the petitioner because of non-consideration of the case of the petitioner for his promotion at the due time, he had been made to suffer a pecuniary Joss of more than Rs.30,000/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance on the case of Devaki Nandan Prasad Vs. The State of Bihar and others reported in 1983 S.C. 1134, has submitted that in view of intentional and deliberate harassment caused to the petitioner heavy exemplary cost to the extent of at least 30,000/- should be awarded in the present case. In this case the Supreme Court has awarded an exemplary cost at Rs.25,000/-. Agreeing partially with the counsel of tile petitioner, I feel that suitable exemplary cost should be awarded in this case which I quantify at Rs.10,000/-, which should be paid by the Respondent no. 4 to the petitioner within two months from the date of communication of this order. 6. Let a copy of this order be sent to respondent no. 4 immediately. 7. This writ application is allowed as indicated above.