Judgment 1. A petition was filed by a Class IV employees, whose duties were in a jail, that the promotion granted to him in 1989 from a Physical Instructor to a House Master, a Class III post, was cancelled in 1996. 2. Perhaps, this was a reaction because another incumbent had filed a contempt application. This was MJC No. 2220 of 1995 (Kusheshwar Sah vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) This is a bad way of running the State administration. A Government does not take any decision itself. But when an order is passed in a contempt case then the reaction is felt by others who have nothing to do with the case. This is one such case. 3. In the counter affidavit the contention is that the petitioner cannot receive a promotion. That he may be promoted to a class III post is accepted. The submission is that the Deputy Director, Social Welfare, had no authority to promote the petitioner and he did so in violation of all the rules, regulations etc. This aspect is mentioned in paragraph-4 of the counter affidavit. Which rule and regulations was violated has not been indicated in the counter affidavit nor it is being indicated to the Court as of now. If the Deputy Director, Social Welfare, had no authority to grant this promotion then the first thing which should have been done was instead of recalling the promotion of the petitioner the Deputy Director, Social Welfare, should have been suspended with departmental proceedings. Why was this not done? 4. The petitioner in their pleadings has brought on record the deliberations of a committee by which he was processed for promotion. This aspect is not denied. The petitioner joined the service as a Physical Instructor in 1963. He is about to retire in the next year. He was entitled to a promotion. At some time for him it happened in 1989. The specific violation of any rule or procedure has not been indicated. The case of the respondents is vague. 5. The learned Judge has committed an error in the light of the observations made in this order. 6. Thus, the appeal is allowed with cost.