ORDER One thing is clear that once the original records come before the High Court on the true use of a writ of certiorari, it reveals a very different position than is made available to the High Court on exchange of pleadings by a petition, a counter affidavit and a rejoinder affidavit. Such a circumstance has happened in the present proceedings and it is fortunate that the Court has been able to examine the issue from the original record. 2. Clearly, notice has to be issued on this appeal not for any other reason but for the fact that the petitioner respondent must know what exactly is going on. 3. The petitioner is one Prem Chand Chaudhary. He had filed a petition earlier, C.W.J.C. No. 1258 of 1998. That was on the issue whether an increment which had been withheld with cumulative effect be treated as a minor punishment or a major punishment. The State of Bihar was permitted to take out proceedings in accordance with the decision on the writ petition. This was in respect to the writ petition. This was in respect to the service record relating to the incumbent for the year 1995-96. The issue on the earlier petition was whether the incumbent had made excess telephone calls when he was posted as Subdivisional Magistrate, Pakur. 4. Five years later a Departmental Promotion Committee was to process promotions which if granted would make the incumbents Additional District Magistrates. Many incumbents were considered for promotions and their cases were examined by a Departmental Promotion Committee comprising of four Officers. There were three lists, (A), (B) and (C). The name of this incumbent, that is, the respondent in this appeal finds itself at serial no. 20 in annexure 3' of the Departmental Promotion Committee's record. The Departmental Promotion Committee, on the record which was made available, obviously to consider persons who are entitled to promotions, short listed the candidates, approved the promotions of 27 incumbents. The respondent was one of them. Thereafter, the matter was placed before the Council of Ministers, that is to say, in effect, the Cabinet. The Council of Ministers on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee ratified the decision. This then became the decision of the State Government. The Governor was advised accordingly. 5. If this appeal had not been filed, the Court would not have noticed all these circumstances. The Council of Ministers on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee ratified the decision. This then became the decision of the State Government. The Governor was advised accordingly. 5. If this appeal had not been filed, the Court would not have noticed all these circumstances. But now they do raise issues which have to be answered by the State respondents. The name of the Governor is taken in a subsequent notification that he is satisfied that the promotion to this incumbent be not granted. Now the question will arise on what is the satisfaction of the Governor? Was the record of this incumbent placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee? Did the Departmental Promotion Committee make a mistake? Likewise did the Council of Ministers make a mistake? If the record was not placed before the Departmental Promotion committee who was responsible for the concealment? Were the records placed before the Council of Ministers truncated? What action has been taken against the officer who concealed the record to first permit the process of promotion to go through, secondly, examined by the Departmental Promotion Committee of four officers and thirdly ratified by the Cabinet. 6. Somebody seems to be more interested in the record and file of this officer which apparently does not seem to surface. When one examines the record one finds that the Deputy Commissioner, when the incumbent was a Sub-divisional Magistrate, later becomes a Joint Secretary. 7. Now the whole issue is whether the decision of the government was subjective or objective. We leave this matter at this. As this is the last week before vacation this matter cannot be considered. It will only be fair that 'the opposite party receives notice and the State may have all the times to offer its defence. Rest assured, the record which has come on a writ of certiorari will stand available to the Court on the next date. 8. Since the respondent is no other person but a government employee, it will be only fair as a part of public justice that the State of Bihar take out summons and notice and effect service upon him and file a service report by Friday. 9. Put up on 15, January, 2004 in the supplementary list.