Judgment B.P.Singh and A.K.Ganguly JJ. 1. Petitioner No.1 herein is the Bihar Rajya Zila Parishad Abhiyantra Seva Sangh, while petitioners 2 to 7 are Assistant Engineers working in the various Zila Parishads in the State of Bihar. Their grievance before this Court is that the post of Assistant Engineer in the Zila Parishad is filled up by promotion as well as by direct recruitment. Petitioners 2 to 7 herein were appointed by the method of direct recruitment as Assistant Engineers between the years 1971 and 1974 and they are still serving as Assistant Engineer in the absence of any promotional avenue available to them. Earlier there was a post of District Engineer which was filled up by promotion from the cadre of Assistant Engineers in the Zila Parishad. Unfortunately for the petitioners, even that promotional avenue which existed in the past vanished upon the cadre of District Engineers being merged with the cadre of Executive Engineers, Roads under the Govt. of Bihar, in the department of Road Construction. The District Engineers, whose cadre stood merged with the cadre of Executive Engineers in the Road Construction department, became members of the Bihar Engineering Service Class-I. So far as the petitioners are concerned, they have no avenue of promotion whatsoever, and if the respondents are not directed to frame appropriate rules, they shall retire as Assistant Engineer. These facts are not disputed before us. 2. It was submitted before us, relying upon several decisions of the Supreme Court, that to maintain efficiency in public service, it is essential that an incumbent of a post must have some prospect of promotion so that he can strive to do his best to earn such promotion. Promotion increases the efficiency of the public service while stagnation reduces its efficiency and makes the service ineffective. Promotion is thus a normal incidence of service. 3. In 1988 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases 519 (Raghunath Prasad Singh vs. Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of Bihar and others) which was a case from Bihar, the Supreme Court observed; "Before we part with the appeal, we would like to take notice of another aspect. In course of hearing of the appeal, to a query made by us learned counsel for the appellant indicated the reason as to why the appellant was anxious to switch over to the general cadre. In course of hearing of the appeal, to a query made by us learned counsel for the appellant indicated the reason as to why the appellant was anxious to switch over to the general cadre. He relied upon two or three communications which are a part of the record where it has been indicated that there is no promotional opportunity available in the wireless organisation. Reasonable promotional opportunities, should be available in every wing of public service. That generates efficiency in service and fosters the appropriate attitude to grow for achieving excellence in service. In the absence of promotional prospects, the service is bound to degenerate and stagnation kills the desire to serve properly. We would, therefore, direct the State of Bihar to provide at least two promotional opportunities to the officers of the State Police in the wireless organisation within six months from today by appropriate amendments of Rules. In case the State of Bihar fails to comply with this direction, it should, within two months thereafter, give a fresh opportunity to personnel in the police wireless organisation to exercise option to revert to the general cadre and that benefit should be extended to everyone in the wireless organisation." It would thus appear that the State of Bihar was directed to provide at least two promotional opportunities to the officers of the State Police in the wireless organisation within six months by appropriate amendments of Rules. 4. In Dr.Ms. O.Z.Hussain vs. Union of India [1990(Supp) Supreme Court Cases 688J, the Supreme Court was considering a writ petition in which it was complained that there was absence of provision for promotion channel for Nonmedical Group A scientists in the establishment of Director General of Health Services under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, while such provision has been made for similarly placed officers in other ministries. While allowing the writ petition, the Court observed; "This Court, has on more than one occasion, pointed out that provision for promotion increases efficiency of the public service while stagnation reduces efficiency and makes the service ineffective. Promotion is thus a normal incidence of service. There too is no justification why while similarly placed officers in other ministries would have the benefit of promotion, the nonmedical A Group scientists in the establishment of Director General of Health Services would be deprived of such advantage. Promotion is thus a normal incidence of service. There too is no justification why while similarly placed officers in other ministries would have the benefit of promotion, the nonmedical A Group scientists in the establishment of Director General of Health Services would be deprived of such advantage. In a welfare State, it is necessary that there should be an efficient public service and, therefore, it should have been the obligation of the Ministry of Health to attend to the representations of the Council and its members and provide promotional avenue for this category of officers. It is, therefore, necessary that on the model of rules framed by the Ministry of Science and Technology with such alterations as may be necessary, appropriate rules should be framed within four months from now providing promotional avenue for the A category scientists in the non-medical wing of the Directorate." The writ petition was, accordingly, allowed and the Union of India was directed to frame a set of appropriate rules, inter alia, providing suitable promotional avenue for the A Group scientists in the non-medical wing of the establishment of Director General of Health Services. Some other consequential reliefs were also granted. 5. In (1989)4 Supreme Court Cases 635 (Council of Scientific and Industrial Research and another vs. K.G.S. Bhatt and another), the same principles were reiterated. The Court observed : "It is often said and indeed adroitly, an organisation public or private does not hire a hand but engages or employs a whole man. The person is recruited by an organisation not just for a job, but for a whole career. One must, therefore, be given an opportunity to advance. This is the oldest and most important feature of the free enterprise system. The opportunity for advancement is a requirement for progress of any organisation. It is an incentive for personnel development as well. Every management must provide realistic opportunities for promising employees to move upward. " The organisation that fails to develop a satisfactory procedure for promotion is bound to pay a severe penalty in terms of administrative costs, misallocation of personnel, low morale, and ineffectual performance, among both nonmanagerial employees and their supervisors. "There cannot be any modern management much less any career planning, manpower development, management development etc. which is not related to a system of promotions." 6. "There cannot be any modern management much less any career planning, manpower development, management development etc. which is not related to a system of promotions." 6. In 1995 Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 589 U.P. State Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. vs. I. B. Mishra and others),a qrievance was made by the respondents (Writ petitioners before the High Court) that the post of General Manager in the U.P. State Tourism Development Corporation was filled up by deputation and not by selection as provided in Rule 19. Though the Court set aside the judgment and order of the High Court commanding the respondents to make selection on the post of General Manager in accordance with the observations made in the said judgment, it made certain observations in paragraph 12 of the report where it reiterated the observations made in Council of Scientific and Industrial Research and O.Z. Hussain (Dr.) (Ms.) (Supra). The Court noticed the fact that rule 19 provided that appointment on the post of General Manager should be filled up by promotion, and if no suitable person is available appointment may be made by deputation. This, it was held, was a matter which appertained to the promotion policy to be adopted by the Corporation. The Court expected that the Corporation while revising its promotion policy will keep in view the observations of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid two judgments. 7. A similar grievance was made before this Court in a writ petition (CWJC No. 8114 of 1988) filed by a Municipal Engineer employeed by the Muzaffarpur Municipal Corporation who complained that there was no promotional avenue open to him and therefore even after rendering years of service, he had no chance of being promoted to a higher post. This Court after considering the decisions of the Supreme Court referred to above directed the State Government to take a final decision in the matter and to inform the Court by filing a supplementary counter affidavit. Since the State took no action whatsoever, the writ petition was allowed and the State of Bihar was directed to provide at least two promotional avenues to the officers of the Muzaffarpur Municipal Corporation, and for that purpose, the State Government was directed to sanction necessary posts within a period of three months. The writ petition was accordingly, disposed of on 8.8.1997. 8. The instant writ petition was filed on 15.4.1987. The writ petition was accordingly, disposed of on 8.8.1997. 8. The instant writ petition was filed on 15.4.1987. When the matter came up before this Court on 6.5.1997 the Advocate General was directed to seek clear instruction as to whether the Engineers of the Zila Parishads will be provided promotional avenues. It was made clear that it was for the State Government to work out the modalities as to how such promotional avenue is to be provided for the Assistant Engineers of the Zila Parishad. This direction was given in the light of the fact that earlier promotional avenue which existed for them had vanished with the merger of the cadre of District Engineers with the cadre of Executive Engineers in the Road Construction department. The matter was adjourned to enable the Advocate General to seek necessary instruction. On 11.9.1998 further time was taken by the Addl.Advocate General III who was instructed to appear in the matter. After the matter was adjourned on 16.10.1998 on the request of AAG III the matter came up again on 27.11.1998 when this Court was informed that a Committee had been constituted by the Government to make recommendations in respect of the amalgamation of the cadre of Junior Engineers and Assistant Engineers of the Zila Parishad with the parent cadre in the Road Construction department, and that the Committee had submitted its recommendation to the Government. As prayed for, a months time was granted for the Government to take a final decision in the matter. On 19.2.1999 this Court was informed that the matter had been referred to the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department whereafter the proposal had to be approved by the Finance Department. On the request, of counsel for the State, the matter was adjourned to be put up after four weeks. On 31.3.1999, it was stated before the Court that the concerned department had already prepared a memorandum which had been sent to the Cabinet for approval. Some more time was prayed for so that final decision could be taken at the Cabinet level. As prayed for, the matter was adjourned for four weeks. On 30th April, 1999, AAG III stated before the Court that the matter had been considered by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms which had approved the same, but since it involved a matter of policy, the approval of Finance Department was also necessary. As prayed for, the matter was adjourned for four weeks. On 30th April, 1999, AAG III stated before the Court that the matter had been considered by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms which had approved the same, but since it involved a matter of policy, the approval of Finance Department was also necessary. For that purpose, he prayed for four weeks time which was granted. On 23.6.1999, the matter was adjourned since the matter was pending consideration by the Cabinet. On 27.7.1999, the State prayed for further time to take final decision and accordingly four weeks further time was allowed. On 30.8.1999, the A.A.G. II informed the Court that the matter was placed before the Economic Committee on 25.8.1999 and 27.8.1999, but the decision taken by the Committee had not yet been communicated. In this manner, the matter was adjourned from time to time without taking any final decision in the matter. A supplementary affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent No.3 on 26.11.1999 in which it was stated that the cabinet committee on economic policy and coordination had rejected the proposal of merger of cadres of Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers of Zila Parishads with the cadre of Assistant Engineers in the Road Construction Department. Since the Government, as a policy, had decided to strengthen the Panchayati Raj institutions in view of 73rd Constitutional amendment, it proposed to activate and strengthen the Zila Parishads. Accordingly, the Rural Development Department was directed to put up a fresh proposal before the Committee in respect of the promotional avenues to be provided for the Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers of the Zila Parishads. The recommendation of the said Committee is dated 17th of September, 1999, but so far nothing has been done. 9. As would be apparent from the facts noticed above, there cannot be any serious dispute to the proposition that Assistant Engineers working under the Zila Parishads must have avenues of promotion so that their efficiency is increased and they are given what is due to them in view of the various decisions of the Supreme Court. The State has failed to take a decision despite assurance given to this Court, and for about two years this Court has waited for the Government to take a decision. We are of the view that this Court may not be justified in adjourning the matter any further. The State has failed to take a decision despite assurance given to this Court, and for about two years this Court has waited for the Government to take a decision. We are of the view that this Court may not be justified in adjourning the matter any further. We, therefore, dispose of this writ petition with the following directions : (i) The State Government shall frame appropriate rules providing for promotional avenues to the Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers employed in the Zila Parishads of the State of Bihar to the same extent as is provided to the members of other engineering services of the State, such as the engineering cadres of the Road Construction department. These rules shall be framed within a period of four months from the date on which a copy of this order is produced before respondent No.1, the Chief Secretary of the Govt of Bihar. Upon such rules being framed, the cases of Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers shall be considered for promotion in accordance with such rules forthwith. (ii) In case the State of Bihar fails to frame the rules as directed, it will be open to the Junior Engineers and Assistant Engineers employed in the Zila Parishads to opt for absorption in an equivalent cadre maintained in the Road Construction Department. On such option being exercised, the Junior Engineers/Assistant Engineers shall be given appropriate seniority, having regard to their length of service, in the cadres in which they are absorbed. If necessary, they shall be granted promotion to higher posts based upon their length of service and suitability as evident from their record of service. In doing so, the length of service rendered by such Assistant Engineers/Junior Engineers in the Zila Parishads shall be taken into account. If any of the Junior Engineer/Assistant Engineer retires within this period of four months, they shall be deemed to have been transferred to the equivalent cadre in the Road Construction Department and their seniority shall be reckoned by reference to their length of service as aforesaid. However, if the rules are framed as directed, their cases shall be considered in the light of the rules framed. 10 This writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.