Order The petitioner has filed the present writ application for quashing the order dated 24.7.96 passed by the respondent no.3 Director (Handicraft & Silk) Department Industries, Govt. of Bihar, by which the first time bound promotion granted to the petitioner by order dated 8.2.91 w.e.f. 1.4.81 has been cancelled and a direction has been issued for recovery of the amount. 2. Admitted facts are that the petitioner was appointed as Overseer on 22.12.1961 and was posted in Eri Silk Farm, Begusarai and in pursuance of which the petitioner joined on 2.1.1962. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Supervisor on 27.8.79 vide Annexure-2 and after that he represented the matter before the authority concerned for grant of first time bound promotion and his case was forwarded by the respondent no.3 for giving first time bound and second time bound promotion to the respondent no.3. On 8.2.91 he was granted first time bound promotion w.e.f. 1.4.81 vide Annexure-3. Thereafter, by order dated 7.3.96 he was granted second time bound promotion w.e.f. 2.4.87 vide Annexure 4 and thereafter the impugned order has been passed which has necessitated the petitioner to approach this court. 3. The State Government has filed a counter affidavit wherein its stand is that the petitioner was already granted promotion to the post of Supervisor by way of promotion on 27.8.79 and as such he is not entitled to first time bound promotion as this promotion is granted as anti stagnation measure. The petitioner on the basis of the representation by suppressing the facts has obtained first time bound promotion. 4. Admitted fact is that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Supervisor on 27.8.79. There is no dispute that the time bound promotion has been provided by the Pay Revision Committee as anti stagnation measure which has been approved by the State Government. According to the Government Circular if a person has not been able to get any promotion during the service tenure then he has to be given first time bound promotion and second time bound promotion on completion of 10 years or 25 years of service. 5. In the case of the petitioner he was already promoted on 27.6.79. As such he was not entitled to first time bound promotion and he has wrongly been given the time bound promotion. 5. In the case of the petitioner he was already promoted on 27.6.79. As such he was not entitled to first time bound promotion and he has wrongly been given the time bound promotion. Accordingly, the authority concerned has taken right steps for cancelling the same and recovering the amount paid by way of first time bound promotion. 6. The submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner that as the petitioner was promoted long back the money paid to him especially in view of Annexure-8 to the writ application cannot be recovered, is wholly misconceived, as in this case the promotion given to the petitioner was subject to the approval of the Finance Department and when the matter came to the notice of the Finance Department that promotion was wrongly given to the petitioner then the same was ordered to be cancelled. 7. Remedy under Article 226 of the constitution is equitable extraordinary jurisdiction. The aim of the equity is to promote honesty. In this case the petitioner has been promoted earlier and on false representation he got first time bound promotion which is not permissible. He being a government servant is required to maintain honesty and absolute integrity. His conduct in that case disentitles him to get any relief. 8. Accordingly, the writ application stands dismissed.