Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1150 (PAT)

Dinesh Rajak v. State Of Bihar

2004-11-23

NAGENDRA RAI, S.N.HUSSAIN

body2004
Judgment 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 8.9.2004, passed by a learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 6382 of 1999, dismissing the writ application filed by the appellant, wherein he had challenged the orders, as contained in Annexures 13 and 14, whereby his promotion to the post of Clerk was cancelled and he was reverted to the substantive post of Kamdar. 2. The admitted fact is that the appellant was appointed as a Kamdar. His case is that subsequently by way of departmental promotion, he was promoted to the post of Clerk in the year 1982 with effect from 1.5.1980 and confirmed later on. He passed every departmental examination and was given due promotion. Thereafter, the impugned orders have been issued reverting the appellant to his original post of Kamdar. 3. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ application relying upon an earlier order of this Court wherein it has been held that the promotional cadre of Kamdar is the Field Operator and not Class III post of Typist/Clerk/Assistant. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant has continued on the post of Clerk for almost seventeen years and as such his reversion is impermissible in law. 5. We do not find any merit in the said contention of the learned counsel for the appellant for the simple reason that the same matter was subject matter of decision before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 678 of 1988, disposed of on 13.1.1997 and this Court held that the promotional post for the Kamdar is the post of Field Operator and not the Class III post of Typist/Clerk/Assistant and that order has attained finality and in pursuance of that order, steps have been taken to remove/revert other persons, who were illegally promoted to the post of Clerk/Assistant/Typist and, accordingly, Annexures 13 and 14 were issued. 6. Even though the appellant has worked for a long period, no sympathy can be shown because that will be counter to the earlier order passed by this Court and it is well-settled that no writ can be issued to act either contrary to law or against the settled law laid down by the Court. 7. For the reasons aforementioned, we do not find any merit in this appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed.