JUDGMENT S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. The petitioner has challenged order no. 22 dated 6th April, 1996 (Annexure-1); letter no. 1649 dated 15th March, 1997 (Annexure-2) and the order no. 10 dated 3rd January, 1996 (Annexure-14). By the impugned order dated 6th April, 1996, while the respondents rejected the claim of the petitioner relating to grant of time bound promotion, by letter dated 15th March, 1997 (Annexure-2) held that the absorption/appointment of the petitioner to the post of Correspondence Clerk, was illegal and ordered to revert him, after giving a show cause notice to the petitioner. By the other order dated 3rd January, 1996 (Annexure-14), certain persons have been granted time bound promotions to higher grades. 2. The brief fact of the case are as follows. 3. Under the respondent State in its Irrigation Department (now known as Water Resources Department), there is a Work Charge Establishment, apart from the Regular Establishment. 4. The State of Bihar by one order no. 941 dated 19th February, 1981 decided to appoint the work charge employees, appointed prior to 21st August, 1975, in its Regular Establishment. By Clause 'Ka' of paragraph-2 of the said order dated 19th February, 1981 (Annexure-4) while a Selection Committee was constituted, by Clause 'Kha' therein decision was taken to appoint work charge employees in the Regular Establishment. Subsequently, some instruction was given by letter no. 6073 dated 26th September, 1981 with respect to such absorption/appointment in the Regular Establishment. 5. The petitioner was initially appointed as Khalasi on 13th January, 1975 in the Work Charge Establishment. The case of the petitioner along with others were considered by a Selection Committee for absorption/appointment in the Regular Establishment. Re-commendation was made by the Selection Committee by its letter dated 31st August, 1981 and on such recommendation, the petitioner and others were appointed in the Regular Establishment in November, 1981. The petitioner was appointed in the Regular Establishment in November, 1981. The petitioner was appointed as Correspondence Clerk and joined the post of Correspondence Clerk on 9th November, 1981. 6. Subsequently, it came to the notice of the respondents that absorption/appointment of some persons were not made, in accordance with the guidelines. By one letter no. 517 dated 2nd April, 1983, it was ordered to absorb/appoint work charge employees following letter no. 6075 dated 26th September, 1981. 6. Subsequently, it came to the notice of the respondents that absorption/appointment of some persons were not made, in accordance with the guidelines. By one letter no. 517 dated 2nd April, 1983, it was ordered to absorb/appoint work charge employees following letter no. 6075 dated 26th September, 1981. However, the respondents never raised any objection relating to absorption appointment of the petitioner in the regular establishment against the post of Correspondence Clerk. 7. It appears that the petitioner claimed for time bound promotion in the higher grade, which was not granted. The petitioner then moved before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 10210 of 1995, which was disposed of on 6th December, 95 and the petitioner was asked to prefer representation before the authorities, who were directed to decide the same. It was only thereafter, the respondents rejected the claim of the petitioner for time bound promotion by impugned order dated 6th April, 1996 (Annexure-1) and by letter dated 15th March, 1997 (Annexure-2), it has been ordered to revert him to the post of Khalasi and then to absorb him in the Regular Establishment and then to grant time bound promotion after giving show cause notice to that effect to the petitioner. On the other hand, others have been promoted to Selection Grade Scale by iA1pugned order dated 3rd January, 1996 (Annexure-14). 8. According to the counsel for the State in term with letter dated 26th September, 1981 the absorption against a higher post was not permissible as the same amount to promotion. The petitioner being a Khalsi in the Work Charge establishment, could not be absorbed against higher post of Correspondence Clerk in the Regular Establishment. It was for the said reason the respondents rejected the Claim for time bound promotion to the higher grade to the post of Correspondence Clerk and the consequential show cause notice was issued by Annexure-2. 9. So far as grant of time bound promotion of other persons are concerned, according to the respondents, their cases are different than the case of the petitioner and in some cases they are enquiring the matter and appropriate decision will be taken as ordered vide impugned order dated 6th April, 1996 (Annexure-1). 9. So far as grant of time bound promotion of other persons are concerned, according to the respondents, their cases are different than the case of the petitioner and in some cases they are enquiring the matter and appropriate decision will be taken as ordered vide impugned order dated 6th April, 1996 (Annexure-1). According to him, the other persons, who were appointed on ad hoc basis against class III post in Work Charge Establishment and thereafter, absorbed in the Regular establishment, their cases are different than the petitioner and the petitioner cannot claim parity with them. 10. In the present case, it is admitted that the petitioner was appointed and absorbed against Class III post about 16-17 years back. Inspite of letter dated 2nd April, 1983 no step was taken to cancel the appointment of the petitioner. In different cases, in the case of Sumeshwar Pd. Verma vs. The State of Bihar & ors. reported in 1991 (1) P.L.J.R. 718 (Patna) and in the case of Subodh Kumar Jha & ors. vs. The State reported in 1989 PL.J.R. 1 (Pat.) this Court prohibited the authorities to re-open the matter relating to legality of appointment after a long delay of about 10-12 years. 11. In the case of Braj Kishore Singh reported in 1997 (1) P.L.J.R. 509 , the full bench while remitted the matter to the respondents observed as follows: "In the ordinary course, in view of my conclusion that it is open to the State Government to consider the validity of appointments already made for the purpose of granting or refusing post facto approval, I would have considered asking the State Government to look into the claim of the appellants afresh. However, having regard to the fact that the appellants have continued in service for more than 17 years, I do not think it would be appropriate exercise of discretion to re-open the matter after such a long lapse of time". 12. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed in the Work Charge Establishment on 13th January, 1975 and was entitled for appointment in the Regular Establishment in terms with State Government's decision contained in order no. 941 dated 19th February, 1981. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner does not hold the qualification for appointment against Class III post of Correspondence Clerk. 941 dated 19th February, 1981. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner does not hold the qualification for appointment against Class III post of Correspondence Clerk. Further, the guideline for such appointment in the Regular Establishment dated 19th February, 1981 (Annexure-4) makes no such provision of appointment against one or other category of post. 13. So far as the order contained in letter no. 6073 dated 26th September, 1981 is concerned, the same has not been enclosed by the parties as enclosure. Therefore, I am not in a position to decide as to whether appointment against higher post from amongst eligible categories of Class IV employees was permissible or not. However, as the aforesaid guideline dated 26th September, 1981 was not in existence when the petitioner was selected and recommended for appointment on 31st August, 1981, the same cannot be made applicable in his case. This apart the respondents have also fixed certain quota (25%) to fill up Class III posts from amongst eligible Class IV employees. Thus, there is nothing on the record to suggest that a Class IV employee cannot be appointed against a Class III post in the Regular Establishment, even if qualified and on selection recommended by a Selection Committee. 14. Further, as the petitioner was appointed against Class III post of Correspondence Clerk by order dated 7th November, 1981 and more than 16 years have passed, I am not inclined to permit the respondent State to re-open the matter of legality of appointment at this belated stage. 15. Apart from my aforesaid finding, I find from the impugned letter dated 15th March, 1997 (Annexure-2) that the respondents first held the appointment of petitioner as illegal and ordered to revert him to the post of Khalasi. After giving such finding, it has ordered to give show cause notice to the petitioner, which is in violation of natural justice. 16. For the reasons stated above, I set aside the impugned letter dated 15th March, 1997 (Annexure-2) and consequential order dated 6th April, 1996 (Annexure-1). 17. The writ petition is allowed with direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for time bound promotion to higher grade of Correspondence Clerk, in accordance with law, if so permissible. 16. For the reasons stated above, I set aside the impugned letter dated 15th March, 1997 (Annexure-2) and consequential order dated 6th April, 1996 (Annexure-1). 17. The writ petition is allowed with direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for time bound promotion to higher grade of Correspondence Clerk, in accordance with law, if so permissible. The respondents will communicate the decision to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the judgment. However, on the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.