Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 725 (PAT)

Mithlesh Kumar Sinha v. State Of Bihar

2005-08-12

RADHA MOHAN PRASAD

body2005
Judgment 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved on account of denial of promotion from the post of Head Clerk to the post of Head Assistant. According to his case, his juniors were granted notional promotion with effect from 1.1.2002, vide office order contained in Annexure 15 to the supplementary rejoinder filed on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that the names of the juniors of the petitioner, namely, Kailash Paswan and Chandreshwar Prasad, are placed at serial nos. 22 and 24 of the said office order (Annexure 15). 2. The name of the petitioner in Annexure A to the supplementary affidavit is placed at serial no. 44 and the last column against his name shows that his case was not considered as he had already superannuated before 6.10.2004 when the D.P.C. met for consideration. 3. However, in the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it is stated that the case of the petitioner was examined by the D.P.C. and in the meeting of the D.P.C. after due scrutiny it was found that he had not passed the Accounts Examination, which is mandatory for promotion. Secondly, it is contended that the petitioner was very junior and his name could not be enlisted within the purview of promotion and, as such, after due consideration, the D.P.C. rejected his claim, vide Annexure A. 4. Learned counsel for the State has fairly submitted that the expression used in the last column of Annexure A is not correct. In fact, the case of the petitioner was considered by the D.P.C. and he was not found suitable as he had not passed the required Accounts Examination. 5. The names of Shri Kailash Paswan and Shri Chandeshwar Prasad are placed at serial nos. 48 and 50 of the proceeding of the D.P.C., contained in Annexure A, which itself shows that they are undisputedly junior to the petitioner. Annexure 15 shows that the said two persons have been given promotion with effect from 1.1.2002. The petitioner superannuated from service on 30th April, 2004 i.e., on much later date. 6. Learned counsel for the State has failed to show any provision either under the Boards Miscellaneous Rules or even as per the Government decision that for promotion from Head Clerk to Head Assistant passing of the Accounts Examination is even directory much less mandatory, as claimed in the counter affidavit. 6. Learned counsel for the State has failed to show any provision either under the Boards Miscellaneous Rules or even as per the Government decision that for promotion from Head Clerk to Head Assistant passing of the Accounts Examination is even directory much less mandatory, as claimed in the counter affidavit. He has placed reliance on letter no. Bi.Ni. 1-06/79 Part-2132/Bi. (2) dated 1.4.1980 of the Finance Department, perusal whereof shows that the said Circular with reference to rule 156-157 of the Boards Miscellaneous rules clarified about passing of Accounts Examination for the purpose of crossing of efficiency bar. It nowhere provides that passing of Accounts Examination for the purpose of consideration of the cases for promotion from Head Clerk to Head Assistant is mandatory. 7. Under such circumstances, in my opinion, denial of promotion to the petitioner at least with effect from 1.1.2002 since when his juniors were given promotion, vide Annexure 15, is wholly arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. 8. Accordingly, the writ application is allowed. The respondents are directed to re-consider the case of the petitioner and issue necessary notification regarding his promotion from Head Clerk to Head Assistant within four weeks of the receipt/production of a copy of this order.