JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The three petitioners are claimants for promotion to the post of Labour Superintendent but their hopes have been belied by a decision taken by the respondent which has been termed to be based on a wrong factual matrix and Rule of promotion related thereto. 3. There is no dispute that the post of Labour Superintendent is filled up by two modes of recruitments. Fifty percent of the posts are to be filled up by direct recruitment and other fifty percent is filled up by promotion from three different cadres or posts. The three posts in question are known as Labour Enforcement Officer, Labour Welfare Officer and Statistical Assistant. 4. In the undivided Bihar there were 641 posts available for the Labour Enforcement Officer, 24 posts for the Welfare Officer and 35 posts as Statistical Assistant. Since the State of Jharkhand was created on bifurcation the corresponding figure on the three posts left for the State of Bihar are 429, 16 and 23 respectively which adds up to a figure of 468. 5. It is the contention of learned Senior counsel for the petitioners is that based on the strength of the three posts a percentage figure for promotion from the three cadres or posts was worked out. On working out of the figure the Labour Enforcement Officers are entitled to 92% posts, the Labour Welfare Officer 3% and Statistical Assistants 5%. In support of above learned counsel for the petitioners has brought on record file noting along with the I.A. No. 3239 of 2007 which is annexure-8 to the said I.A. Clause 4.2 of the noting reflects the position taken by the petitioners in the present writ application. 6. 34 posts became available for promotion on the post of Labour Superintendent. 21 persons granted promotion and the balance 13 posts remained unfilled. The whole legal battle launched by the present petitioners relates to filling up these 13 posts. 7. The stand of the petitioners is that the State Government for the reasons best known to it, ignoring the earlier decision and the claim of the respective eligible candidates from the three posts, altered the percentage unilaterally to 80%, 10% and 10%. This has obviously created prejudice against the persons who are hopeful for promotion from the Labour Enforcement Officer quota. This has obviously created prejudice against the persons who are hopeful for promotion from the Labour Enforcement Officer quota. There is no explanation coming from the State Government for effecting a change. In absence of any reasoning or rule the percentage worked out for the three respective posts cannot undergo a change. No tinkering with the percentage can or ought to be allowed as it is based on proportionality. 8. There is a counter affidavit as well as a supplementary counter affidavit on record by the respondents. Their stand is that the promotions are being granted on the basis of the necessary service conditions and the rules which is known as Bihar Labour Service (General) Rules 1969. The decision of the State respondents is based on the said rules and they support the allocation of the posts to the respective cadres or posts which is under challenge. 9. The Court has gone through the counter affidavit and the supplementary affidavit. Attention of the Court has also been drawn to the file noting which is annexure-F to the supplementary counter affidavit. But there is nothing in terms of the averment as well as discussion in the said file noting as to why and how the respective percentage had undergone a change. If the earlier 1999 decision or file noting annexed by the petitioners with their interlocutory application was faulty in any manner then there would have been some discussion on that issue on the subsequent decision or file noting which has been produced by learned "counsel of the State as annexure-F. But in absence of any explanation offered by the State in the supplementary counter affidavit or from the so called noting obviously it is case of either oversight or mischief or lobbying from some quarter. 10. In absence of any cogent explanation coming forth from the State, the Court certifies that the initial percentage worked out for the three posts for promotion to the post of Labour Superintendent must remain at 92%, 3% and 5% and the same cannot be altered to 80%, 10% and 10%. 11. The decision to grant promotion on the basis of new percentage and allocation to the three posts therefore are quashed. 11. The decision to grant promotion on the basis of new percentage and allocation to the three posts therefore are quashed. The respondents are directed to grant promotion to the eligible candidates on the basis of original percentage based on the strength of the respective cadre that is ninety-two percents, three percents and five percents respectively. The decision to grant promotion contained in annexure-7 is hereby quashed. 12. This writ application is allowed.