ORDER MIHIR KUMAR JHA, J.:–Heard counsel for the parties. In this writ application the prayer of the petitioner reads as follows:– “(i) For issuance of a writ in the nature of writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned resolution/ order (Annexure 9) of the State Government bearing no.13 (20) dated 11.1.1993 and the order of the State Government Department of Health, Health Education and Family Welfare bearing memo no. 266(20) dated 4.9.98 so far the petitioner at serial no.7 is concerned (Annexure 10) issued in compliance of the said resolution by which the promotion/ appointment given to the petitioner to the post of Block Extension Educator from the post of Basic Health Worker has been cancelled after expiry of 18 years and the petitioner has been ordered to be reverted back to his initial post of B.H.W. which was duly given to him in compliance of the policy decision of the Central Government issued vide letter no. 12012 of 1979 (Annexure 5) to this petitioner. (ii) For issuance of a direction to the State Government not to give effect to the impugned resolution retrospectively by depriving this petitioner from his bonafide right which has been accrued in his favour since last 18 years. iii) For issuance of a direction commanding the respondents to give effect to the said resolution prospectively for further promotion and not retrospectively.” 2. In support of the aforementioned prayer learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner having been promoted on the post of Extension Educator under the order of the Addl. Director of Health Services dated 28.9.1985 after serving on the post of Basic Health Worker for the period over nine years could not have been reverted on his original post only on account of a subsequent Government decision dated 11.1.1993 especially when his such promotion on the post of Block Extension Educator was in complete conformity of the guidelines issued by the Govt. of India for filling up the post of Block Extension Educator. In this regard learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on a judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Sheo Nath Prasad Vs. the State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 1971 PLJR 236 as also an unreported judgment of this Court dated 25.8.2010 in C.W.J.C.No. 104/2008 (Ram Kuber Singh Vs. the State of Bihar & Ors.). 3. the State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 1971 PLJR 236 as also an unreported judgment of this Court dated 25.8.2010 in C.W.J.C.No. 104/2008 (Ram Kuber Singh Vs. the State of Bihar & Ors.). 3. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, having filed the counter affidavit has explained that the petitioner’s promotion on the post of Block Extension Educator was itself illegal, inasmuch as he was an employee of the Health Wing whereas the post of Block Extension Educator was a post of Family Planning Wing and the petitioner, therefore, being a member of a different cadre could not have been given promotion on the post of Block Extension Educator. He has also submitted that while taking such a decision for promotion of the petitioner Resolution of the Government of India was wrongly construed by the Additional Director of the Health Department and in any event such promotion given only to the petitioner in isolation merely on the recommendation of his immediate controlling district authorities was wholly unjustified. In this regard reliance has also been placed by him on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State of Bihar & ors. Vs. Md. Ashif & ors, reported in 2003(2) PLJR 808 . 4. In order to appreciate the rival contentions it would be necessary to take into account the admitted facts which lie in a very narrow compass. 5. The petitioner admittedly was appointed on the post of Basic Health Worker in the Directorate of Health on 4.3.1976. During continuation of his service the petitioner claims to have passed Bachelor of Arts Examination in the year 1984 and he had also completed his Post Graduation in the subject of Hindi in the year 1989.. The Addl. Director of Health Services in the light of the recommendation made by the Civil Surgeon had passed an isolatory order of promotion dated 29.8.1985 only in the case of the petitioner against the post of Extension Educator (Prasar Prashikshak). The Addl. Director of Health Services in the light of the recommendation made by the Civil Surgeon had passed an isolatory order of promotion dated 29.8.1985 only in the case of the petitioner against the post of Extension Educator (Prasar Prashikshak). Such order of promotion of the petitioner reads as follows:– funs'kky; LokLF; lsok] fcgkj] iVukA 28.9.85 vkns'k Jh jfoUnz 'kekZ] cqfu;knh LokLF; dk;ZdrkZ] Lokñ midsUnz] gqlSukckn (iykeq) ds fo'ofoèkky; iznÙk fof'f"Vrk ds lkFk Lukrd ;ksX;rk ,oa 16 o"kZ ls vf/d dh {ks=kh; dk;Z ds vuqHko ,oa izHkkjh fpñ inkñ gqlSukckn dk vuq'kalk tks vij eqñ fpñ inkñ (iykeq) ds ekè;e ls izkIrksa ds vkèkkj ij izlkj izf'k{kd ds in ij osrueku 785-25-1135&nñ jksñ-25-1210 ds osrueku esa izksUufr nh tkrh gSA Jh 'kekZ dh ;g izksUufr Hkfo"; esa ,sls izksUufr gsrq cukbZ xbZ uhfr ,oa ojh;rk ds vuq:i ;Fkk okafNr la'kks/ku jn~n fd;k tk ldsxkA ;g izksUufr gqlSukckn iz[kaM ds izlkj izf'k{kd ds fuyafcr ds iQyLo:i xr 9 o"kks± ls in fjDr jgus ,oa iñdñ dk dk;ZØe esa ckèkk ns[krs gq, dh xbZ gSA vr% Jh 'kekZ gqlSukckn esa gh inLFkkfir gksdj iñdñ dk;ZØe dks lqpk: :i ls lapkyu djsaxsA gñ@& /eZnso pkS/jh 28.9.85 vij funs”kd Lokñ lsok (izñ) fcgkj 6. The first question which would arise as to whether such promotion of the petitioner was in accordance with law? The stand of the respondents in the counter affidavit is that the post of Basic Health Worker is in the Health Wing whereas the post of Extension Educator is in the Family Planning Wing and the two have different cadres of its own employees. It has been explained that actually the post of Family Welfare Health Assistant is the basic grade feeder post of promotional post of Extension Educator and therefore, the promotion of the petitioner given by the Addl. Director of Health on the post of Prasar Pracharak (Extension Educator) in isolation was illegal. In this regard it has also been stated that when the Addl. Director of Health on the post of Prasar Pracharak (Extension Educator) in isolation was illegal. In this regard it has also been stated that when the Addl. Director of Health had promoted the petitioner he did not consider the cases of other Basic Health Worker nor any internal advertisement/ notice was circulated by the Directorate of Health seeking application for filling up the alleged promotional post of Extension Educator and therefore, even if the petitioner had requisite qualification for the post of Extension Educator i.e. Graduation with two years experience that by itself could not have conferred any special privilege to the petitioner alone for being promoted in isolation. It is in this regard that the respondents have taken the following categorical stand in the counter affidavit:– “5. (ii) That the Basic Health Worker and Family Welfare Health Assistant are two separate cadres in the Directorate of Health Services, Bihar, Patna by ignoring the norms of Govt. of India above said circular as well as State Govt. circular regarding appointment/ promotion, promoted the petitioner Sri Rabindra Sharma, Basic Health Worker to the post of Block Extension Educator. Promotions are to be made only from amongst the cadre and not from other cadre. In the instant promotion/ appointment, no advertisement, no selection committee was formed and also no reservation rules were followed. (iii) That accordingly, the Health Medical Education and Family Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar, after careful examination of such cases ordered through resolution no. 13(20) dated 11.1.93 to cancel the wrong and illegal promotion/ appointment from the date 4.1.80 and directed to revert them to their respective previous post.” 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner though he has filed a reply to the counter affidavit does not dispute the afroresaid position as with regard to the post of Basic Health Worker being not the basic feeder post of the post of Extension Educator. In fact the reply to the counter affidavit being not parawise this Court has found no answer to the aforementioned extracted portion of the counter affidavit. Thus, it becomes an admitted fact that the post of Extension Educator was not the promotional post of Basic Health Worker. 8. A question thus would arise as to whether the petitioner could be promoted on the post of Extension Educator even if it did not fall in the line of promotional post of Basic Health Worker? Thus, it becomes an admitted fact that the post of Extension Educator was not the promotional post of Basic Health Worker. 8. A question thus would arise as to whether the petitioner could be promoted on the post of Extension Educator even if it did not fall in the line of promotional post of Basic Health Worker? In all services there is invariably hierarchy of post comprising higher post and lower post. It has been judicial recognized that the higher post shall carry more responsibility and the higher pay and the promotional post is generally a higher post with a higher pay than the feeder post i.e. post from which the promotion takes place. Reference in this connection may be usefully made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Lalit Mohan Deb & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in AIR 1972 SC 995 . Once this Court comes to the conclusion that the post of Extension Educator was not the promotional post of the post of Basic Health Worker, the promotion given to the petitioner in isolation cannot be upheld so as to condemn or set aside the order of his reversion from the said post of Extension Educator. 9. The matter in fact can be viewed even from yet another angle. The Government of India circular (Resolution) as with regard to manning the post for the Family Welfare Wing, for which 100% grant is being given by the State Government, even if it had envisaged picking up the persons of experienced workers in the Health Wing of the Department, it was absolutely necessary for the Addl. Director to issue notice to all the Civil Surgeon asking them to circulate the list of all Basic Health Workers who had possessed the qualification for the post of Extension Educator. Such procedure could have led to internal recruitment against the higher post though not promotion in the strict sense of term. Admittedly even this recourse was not adopted when the Addl. Director of the Health Services had suddenly promoted the petitioner in isolation by his order dated 28.9.1985 only on the basis of some recommendation of the Civil Surgeon and/or In-charge Medical Officer under whom the petitioner was working. 10. Admittedly even this recourse was not adopted when the Addl. Director of the Health Services had suddenly promoted the petitioner in isolation by his order dated 28.9.1985 only on the basis of some recommendation of the Civil Surgeon and/or In-charge Medical Officer under whom the petitioner was working. 10. This Court from the perusal of the order of promotion of the petitioner dated 28.9.1985 in fact would find that no norms of promotion was followed while notifying the promotion of the petitioner. While considering the promotion, the competent authority has to consider all similarly situated persons by fixing zone of consideration, qualification for promotion, seniority, merit, past records, vigilance clearance as also other factors including those which are to be considered as bar to promotion. None of these were however considered while granting promotion to the petitioner and therefore, this Court would find that such illegal promotion given to the petitioner did not confer him any right to continue against the promoted post of Extension Educator. 11. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the Govt. of India circular (Resolution) contained in instruction dated 15.5.1979 is also wholly misplaced, inasmuch as such Govt. of India instruction was with regard to Family Welfare Programme. The petitioner as a Basic Health Worker in the Health Wing was not associated with the work of Family Welfare Programme and therefore, whatever clarifications were issued by the Govt. of India in the aforesaid circular could not have been made ground for promoting the petitioner against the post of Extension Educator which were to be filled up at the level of Rural Family Welfare Centers. The said Govt. of India instruction in fact had envisaged appointment on the post of Extension Educator and paragraph 3 of the said Govt. of India in the aforesaid circular could not have been made ground for promoting the petitioner against the post of Extension Educator which were to be filled up at the level of Rural Family Welfare Centers. The said Govt. of India instruction in fact had envisaged appointment on the post of Extension Educator and paragraph 3 of the said Govt. of India instruction reading as follows:– “ In order that the persons appointed to the said post possess the requisite qualifications and experience and there may be avenues of promotion for the personnel working, at lover levels under the Family Welfare Programme, Qualification jobs, functions and mode by which these posts may be filled up have also been drawn and given in appendix A. The State Government may follow the recruitment procedure laid down for filling up this post and should ensure that the posts are filled up by duly qualified candidates in accordance with the guidelines given in Annexure A.” would itself go to show that even by way of promotion on the post of Extension Educator only the personnel working at the lower level only in the Family Welfare Programme were to be considered. 12. Whatever little doubt may remain as with regard to the post of Basic Health Worker being not the feeder post and the post of Extension Educator being not the promotional post of Basic Health Worker is itself clarified by Appendix A being the part of guidelines fixed by the Govt. of India in its resolution for filling up the post of Family Welfare Assistant, Block Extension Educator, District Extension Educator, District Extension and Media Officer which are the post in hierarchy from lower level to the higher level in Family Welfare Programme. The opening paragraph of the guidelines for filling up the Media and Extension Post in the State under Family Welfare Programme reads as follows:– “Appendix-A Guidelines for filling media and Extension Posts In the States under the Family Welfare Programme. In view of new approach to health and family welfare job, functions of Media and extension personnel working under the family welfare programme were revised in September, 1978 and communications to the States vide letter no. M.17011/9/78 MEM, dated 14.9.78 (copy enclosed). In view of new approach to health and family welfare job, functions of Media and extension personnel working under the family welfare programme were revised in September, 1978 and communications to the States vide letter no. M.17011/9/78 MEM, dated 14.9.78 (copy enclosed). The hierarchy in the extension and Media set up in the State consists of family welfare health Assistant at the sector level, B.E.E. at the Block/ PHC level, Dy Distt. Ext. & Media Officers (Distt. Extension and media officer (Distt. Masseducation and information officer) at the distt. Level and officers at the State level. The Officers at the higher level have to supervise and guide those below them down the line. I. FAMILY WELFARE HEALTH ASSISTANT. Basic Health Assistant Basic Health worker The family welfare Health Assistant is the male field functionary responsible for educating and motivating eligible couples for family welfare acceptances. He is responsible to the Block Extension Educator. However, under the multi- purpose workers schemes, perhaps, his role is the same as of the M.P.W at the sector level. Qualifications for FWHA was matriculation which was letter relaxed at the request of some State Govt. For fresh recruitment a minimum qualification of matriculation should be insisted and it should be direct recruitment. The boan impesedon filling up of these post still exists and post which fall vacant due to still exists promotions, retirement etc. of present inforben be filled up with the above qualification. II. Block Extension Educator. The Educational qualification prescribed was graduation. However, the existing BEEs are a mixed lot qualification wise. Some possess post graduate degrees, some are graduates, but there are many who are only matriculates, under the revised functions assigned to the BEE, his role is to provide guidance to all health and family welfare workers of the PHC in relation to the education component of their functions. It is therefore necessary that the post of BEEs should be filled by those who have at least a university Degree and two years of experience related to community education. III. Dy. District Extension and Media Officer Distt. Extension Educator. these are two posts of Deputy Distt. Extension & Media Officer in many district both the post are not filled up. The Distribution of one of the posts being for females has lost relevance. We have recommended the states that the Distt. III. Dy. District Extension and Media Officer Distt. Extension Educator. these are two posts of Deputy Distt. Extension & Media Officer in many district both the post are not filled up. The Distribution of one of the posts being for females has lost relevance. We have recommended the states that the Distt. should be divided between the two officers who will discharge similar functions in respect of the PHC/ Blocks allotted to them. The required qualification for these posts should be at beast a university degree. The posts may be filled up be promoting those BEEs who have a university Degree and have completed 5 yrs of service in that capacity. There should be no direct recruitment to those posts. In some places, one post is being held by public Health Nurse. In view of sanction of new post of District Public Health Nurse at each Distt. Family Welfare bureau this functionary may be absorbed against that post and the resultant post may be filled by promotion BEEs possessing the qualifications new prescribed. IV. DISTRICT EXTENSION AND MEDIA OFFICER (DIST. MIE.I) In order to provide promotional avenues to Deputy Distt. Extension & Media Officers (Distt. Extension Educator) 75% of posts of Distt. Extension and Media Officers should be filled up by promotion from Deputy Distt. Exts. & Media Officers and the remaining 25% by direct recruitment. The candidates for direct recruitment should possesses following qualification. Essential Qualification. (a) Graduate of a recognized University. (b) Five years experience of extension education/ Health educator/ publicity/ Public relations/ social education. PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS. (a) Master’s Degree in one of the social Sciences. (b) Experience of working with rural communities. 13. Thus, the circular (Resolution) of the Government of India containing the instructions by itself makes it clear that the post of Basic Health Worker was not the feeder post of Extension Educator and therefore, the promotion of the petitioner notified by the Addl. Director of Health Services was even in complete contravention of the Govt. of India instructions/ circular (Resolution) dated 15.5.1979 which is on record by way of Annexure 5 to this writ application. Merely because the petitioner was a Graduate or a Post Graduate that by itself could not have given him any right in isolation to be considered for promotion on the post of Block Extension Educator. If such was the case that the Govt. Merely because the petitioner was a Graduate or a Post Graduate that by itself could not have given him any right in isolation to be considered for promotion on the post of Block Extension Educator. If such was the case that the Govt. of Bihar had found lack of suitable number of persons to man post of Extension Educator it had to either advertise the post for direct recruitment or at least issue internal notices to all the eligible working employees in the Health Department for such appointment on the post of Block Extension Educator wherein the person like the petitioner being a Graduate and working on the post of Basic Health Worker or other equivalent post could also have been considered. 14. In this background this Court does not find any flaw in the impugned resolution of the Health Department of the Government of Bihar dated 8.1.1993 wherein only the scope of Govt. of India instruction/ circular dated 15.5.1979 was reiterated. The fixation of the cut off date of 4.1.1980 in the said impugned resolution has also a rationale, inasmuch as the letter of the Govt. of India dated 15.5.1979 as with regard to filling up the post of Extension Educator and other post of Family Planning Wing were circulated to all the controlling authorities at the district level by the Government by its letter No.10 (Pariwar Kalyan) dated 4.1.1980. Thus, once this Court would uphold the impugned resolution dated 8.1.1993 there would be no difficulty in upholding the consequential order passed in the case of the petitioner dated 4.9.1998 reverting him to his original post of Basic Health Worker. 15. It has to be also kept in mind that as a matter of fact the petitioner’s promotion was initially rescinded way back on 18.10.1994 after issuance of the impugned resolution dated 11.1.1993 and its implementary order dated 7.3.1994 but such order of reversion of the petitioner dated 18.10.1994 was quashed by this Court in a writ application filed by the petitioner, C.W.J.C.No. 9588/1994 by an order dated 8.12.1994 only on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice by giving liberty to the competent authority to proceed afresh in the matter. Thereafter the petitioner was given the show cause notice on 18.6.1996 and it was only after perusal of his show cause reply that the impugned order of reversion of the petitioner was passed holding promotion of the petitioner to be illegal and also in contravention of the Govt. of India circular dated 15.5.1979 and the State Government’s own letter dated 4.1.1980. It has to be kept in mind that not only the petitioner but 12 other similarly situated persons were also reverted from the post of Extension Educator. of India circular dated 15.5.1979 and the State Government’s own letter dated 4.1.1980. It has to be kept in mind that not only the petitioner but 12 other similarly situated persons were also reverted from the post of Extension Educator. Thus, the impugned order dated 4.9.1998 reading as follows:– fcgkj ljdkj LokLF; fpfdRlk f'{kk ,oa iñ dñ foHkkxA vkns'kA jkT; ifjokj dY;k.k dk;ZØe ds vUrXkZr fnukad& 4.1.1980 ds ckn ifjokj dY;k.k dk;ZdrkZ laoxZ ls fHkUu laoxZ ;Fkk ikNd] Mªslj dEikmaMj cqfu;knh LokLF; dk;ZdrkZ fpfdRlk lgk;d laxiky vkfn ls iz[kaM izlkj izf'k{kd ds in ij izksUufr@fu;qfDr dh x;h FkhA LokLF; fpñ f'kñ ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k foHkkxh; ladYi lañ& 13(20) fnukad& 11.1.93 esa fufgr vkns'k ds vkyksd esa dfri; vlSfud 'kY; fpfdRld& lg&eq[; fpfdRlk inkfèkdkfj;ksa }kjk lacafèkr izlkj izf'k{kd ds Li"Vhdj.k izkIr dj fopkjksijkUr mUgsa vius ewy in ij izR;kofrZr dj fn;k x;kA 2- mDr vkns'k ds fo:¼ dfri; iz[kaM izlkj izf'k{kdksa }kjk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; iVuk esa lh- MCyw- ts- lh- uañ& 9111/94, 9141/94, 9841/94, ,oa 10043/94] nk;j fd;k x;k] vkSj lekns'k ;kfpdk esa fnukad& 1.12.94 dks ikfjr vkns'k ds vkyksd esa lacafèkr iz[kaM izlkj izf'k{kdksa ls LokLF; funs'kky; ds i=kkad& 106(20) fnukad& 18.8.96 }kjk dkj.k i`PNk ekaxk x;kA bl izkIr dkj.k i`PNk ij leqfpr fopkjksijkUr ik;k x;k fd muls izkIr dkj.k i`PNk larks"k tud ugha gS] rFkk iz[kaM izlkj izf'k{kd ds in ij dh x;h izksUufr@fu;qfDr vfu;fer ,oa voSèk gSA Hkkjr ljdkj LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k ea=kky; ds ifji=k lañ& ,p- 12012@oh@8.78 lh- MCyw- oh- fnukad& 15.5.79 ,oa Lokñ funs'kky; ds i=kad 10 (nñ dñ fnukad& 4.1.1980 esa fufgr ekinaMksa@funsZ'kksa ds izfrdwy izksUufr fu;qfDr dh x;h gS] rFkk dkfeZd ,oa iz'kklfud lqèkkj foHkkx }kjk fuèkkZfjr izfØ;kvksa dk vuqikyu ugha fd;k x;k gSA vr% mi;qZDr ladYi ,oa ifji=k ds vkyksd esa layXu lwph esa vafdr fuEufyf[kr rsjg deZpkfj;ksa dks iz[kaM izlkj izf'k{kd ds in ij dh x;h izksUufr@fu;qfDr jnn dj mUgsa vkns'k fuxZr gksus dh frfFk ls ewy in ij dh x;h izR;kofrZr fd;k tkrk gSA gñ@& jk; izHkkdj izlkn ljdkj ds mi lfpoA Kkikad%& 266 (20) Lokñ] iVuk] fnukad& 4.9.98 izfrfyfi& lacafèkr {ks=kh; mi funs'kd] LokLF; lsok;sa dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d fØ;kFkZ izsf"krA izfrfyfi& lacafèkr vñ 'kñ fpñ≶&eq[; fpfdRlk inkñ@vij eq[; fpñ inkñ@ftyk izlkj ,oa fxfM;k inkfèkdkjh dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dkjokbZ gsrq izsf"krA mUgsa funsZ'k fn;k tkrk gS fd izR;kofrZr fd;s x;s lacafèkr deZpkfj;ksa dk ;ksxnku ewy in ij LohÑr funs'kky; dks lwfpr djsaA 3- izfrfyfi& vk;qDr ,oa lfpo] Lokñ fpñ f'kñ ,oa iñ dñ foHkkx] fcgkj lfpo dks lwpukFkZ izsf"krA 4- izfrfyfi& funs'kd izeq[k LokLF; lsok;sa fcgkj] iVuk ds lfpo dks lwpukFkZA 5- lwph layXu lacafèkr dfeZ;ksa dks lwpukFkZ izsf"krA mUgsa funsZ'k fn;k tkrk gS fd vius ewy in ij lacafèkr flfoy ltZu ds dk;kZy; esa ;ksxnku djsaA iz[kaM izlkj izf'k{kdksa dh lwph Øekad iz[kaM izlkj inLFkkfir LFkku dk uke izf'k{kdksa dk uke 1- Jh vejukFk izkFkfed Lokñ dsUnz jhxk flag lhrke<+hA 2- Jh czgenso izlkn izkFkfed Lokñ dsUnz flag osynksj eqaxsjA 3- Jh v'kksd izkFkfed Lokñ dsUnz mnk egkjkt fd'kuxat eèksiqjkA 4- Jh fo|kHkq"ku izkFkfed Lokñ dsUnz eksjs frokjh xksiky xatA 5- Jh vy[k izkFkfed Lokñ dsUnz fujatu teqvk] fxfjMhg 6- Jh d`".knso lnjiz[kaM] iVuk 'kekZ 7- Jh jfoUnz 'kekZ izkFkfed LokLF; dsUnz vkscjk] vkSjaxkckn 8- Jh iQyh vgen izkFkfed LokLF; dsUnz pkSlk iz[kaM eèksiqjkA 9- Jh vtheqnnhu izkFkfed LokLF; dsUnz valkjh osjkSyh] xksikyxat 10- Jh fprjatu izlkn izkFkfed LokLF; dsUnz osjeks cksdkjks 11- Jh vtwZu izlkn izkFkfed LokLF; dsUnz dksMjek gtkjhckx 12- Jh equs'oj lkguh izkFkfed LokLF; dsUnz ea>kSfy;k csfr;k 13- Jh 'kjnpUnz izkFkfed LokLF; dsUnz Mksxjk >ksadikuh flagHkwe gñ@& vLi"V 2-9- ljdkj ds mi lfpoA seeking to not only revert the petitioner but in all thirteen persons named above in the order including the petitioner does not suffer from any factual or legal infirmity. 16. The issue relating to promotion on the post of Basic Health Worker outside their cadre was considered by a Division Bench in the case of Arvind Kumar Yadav Vs. the State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2005(3) PLJR 642 , wherein after noticing the fact that the post of Basic Health Worker was a Class III post on technical side, the promotion given to a Class III post on a Clerical side was found to be bad and it was held as follows:– “2. Except some appellants who were Class IV employees remaining appellants were holding Class III post, that is, Basic Health Workers. They were promoted to the post of Clerk in the year 1992 and onwards. An audit team raised an objection to the said promotion that they cannot be promoted and thereafter the matter was taken up by the Government and ultimately the appellants were reverted to the original post. Being aggrieved with the said order, the some of the petitioners- appellants came to this Court and this court quashed the order on the ground that adequate opportunity to show cause was not given to them. Thereafter, show cause notices were given to the appellants to which they replied and ultimately an order was passed reverting their services to the original post and to recover the excess amounts, which has been upheld by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 3. The order of reversion was passed by the authority on the grounds; that as the Basic Health Workers belong to the technical cadre they cannot be promoted to the post of Clerk (non-technical cadre; that their promotions were granted without placing their cases before the Establishment Committee and the Committee which accorded approval to the promotions was not properly constituted; that the reservation policy was not followed and the procedure to give promotion was adopted without making any advertisement. 6. It is difficult to accept the aforesaid submission. So far Class III employees are concerned, they in no case could have been promoted from technical cadre to the non-technical cadre and as such their promotion is void ab initio. This apart Class III employees were already holding Class III post and as such there is no question of promotion to the same class. So far Class III employees are concerned, they in no case could have been promoted from technical cadre to the non-technical cadre and as such their promotion is void ab initio. This apart Class III employees were already holding Class III post and as such there is no question of promotion to the same class. Apart from this other serious irregularities, as stated above, have been noticed and as such the decision taken by the authority for reversion does not suffer from any illegality.” 17. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the Division Bench judgment in the case of Sheo Nath Prasad (supra) is also wholly misconceived, inasmuch as that was not the case of promotion rather it was a case of selection from the Draftman Grade II to the post of Draftman Grade I and actually he was appointed on the higher post and confirmed. It was in that context that the Division Bench had laid down the law that the appointment made on the basis of a proceeding conducted by the Selection Board after holding an interview of the nominees of different workers and finding the petitioner of that case suitable for his job could not have been interfered without following the constitutional mandate of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, only on the ground that one of the persons was ignored while filling up the post of Draftman Grade I. The Division Bench in the case of Sheo Nath Prasad (supra) in fact had gone to the entire gamut of selection process and had found no irregularity in selection but here in the present case when there was no scope of promotion from the post of Basic Heath Worker to the post of Extension Educator and the Government had decided to pass an order of reversion not only in the case of the petitioner but also 12 others as named in the aforementioned quoted portion of the impugned order, it cannot be said that the Government had taken any discriminatory decision only for reverting the petitioner. Such promotion of the petitioner being wholly illegal could not have been sustained and he has been therefore correctly reverted to his parent post. Such promotion of the petitioner being wholly illegal could not have been sustained and he has been therefore correctly reverted to his parent post. The reliance placed in this regard by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of the learned Single Judge in the case of Ram Kuber Singh (supra) is also misplaced and is clearly distinguishable on facts inasmuch as the learned Single Judge in that case was of the view that cancellation of promotion of Basic Health Worker to the post of Clerk was not found to be illegal or irregular. 18. As with regard to plea of long continuation on the promotional post the Division Bench in the case of State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Md. Ashif, reported in 2003(2) PLJR 808 , again arising out of promotion from the post of voluntary Health Worker to the post of Basic Health Worker had held as follows:– “10. So far as appointment to the post of Basic Health Worker/ Dresser is concerned, it cannot be made at the drop of a hat or just for the sake of asking. Such appointments are to be made in accordance with law after following the rules. A backdoor entry by regularization of an illegal appointment may provide solace to the appointee and the appointing authority but would not fit in the frame and four corners of law. In the present matter the respondents/ writ petitioners were unable to show us anything that there was some cadre of Voluntary Health Workers or such Health Workers, who were not on the regular scroll but were only getting the honorarium, could be regularized, appointed or absorbed in the regular services. 11. The Apex Court in the matter of Ashwini Kumar & ors. Vs. State of Bihar & ors. ( AIR 1997 SC 1623 ) State of Madhya Pradesh & anor. Vs. Dharam Bir [(1998) 6SCC 165] and Subedar Singh & ors Vs. The District Judge, Mirzapur & anor. (AIR 2002 SC 201) held that long continuation in service is not a ground to allow the person to remain in service when the initial engagement is in breach of the Constitutional mandate. 12. Vs. Dharam Bir [(1998) 6SCC 165] and Subedar Singh & ors Vs. The District Judge, Mirzapur & anor. (AIR 2002 SC 201) held that long continuation in service is not a ground to allow the person to remain in service when the initial engagement is in breach of the Constitutional mandate. 12. From the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court it would thus clearly appear that an illegal appointment at its inception cannot be legalized by lapse of time or, long stay of the incumbent in the office would not provide any legal foundation in his favour. What is illegal at the inception would not become legal by lapse of time. When the law says that something is to be done in a particular manner then it has to be done accordingly or not at all. 13. True it is that interference in matter like present would be a question of discretion of the Court and the discretion may or may not be affected by number of factors but the question still would be whether the High Court should interfere in a matter where the interference leads to revival of an illegal order. Appointment of the petitioners as Basic Health Workers/ Dressers was in the teeth of the appointment rules and if they were to be removed from services then such removal cannot be said to be bad. The question only would be that if the illegality is detected after a long time, should the Court close its eyes and allow the illegality to perpetuate adinfinitum.” 19. The plea of long continuation in service and even after confirmation has been considered by the Apex Court in the case of Ashwini Kumar Vs. the State of Bihar & ors., reported in (1997)2 SCC 1 and again by this Court in the case of The Bihar Legislative Assembly & ors. Vs. Harendra Kumar Pandey & ors., reported in 1997(1) PLJR 1 wherein it has been held that an illegal order of appointment or promotion cannot be upheld merely on account of confirmation and/or long continuation. 20. Vs. Harendra Kumar Pandey & ors., reported in 1997(1) PLJR 1 wherein it has been held that an illegal order of appointment or promotion cannot be upheld merely on account of confirmation and/or long continuation. 20. Having held so that the promotion of the petitioner was illegal and the impugned order of his reversion to be justified, it would still restrain the authorities from making any recovery of amount drawn by him for the period such promotion was allowed to be continued i.e. from 28.9.1985 to 18.10.1994 when the promotion of the petitioner was cancelled. For this period of almost nine years as the promotion was given to the petitioner without any fraud or misrepresentation on his part and in fact on the recommendation of his immediate controlling authority this Court would not find the petitioner liable for refund of the payment of excess amount to which he was not otherwise entitled had he been not given such illegal promotion. If the Addl. Director of the Health Services himself had given such promotion on the recommendation of the Civil Surgeon, Palamau and the In-charge Medical Officer of the Primary Health where the petitioner was working, the petitioner cannot be saddled with the penal consequences recovery of excess amount, for which an interim order restraining such recovery was passed in this case on 25.9.1998. The respondents in fact would be required to examine the length of service of the petitioner and his records of service on the post of Basic Health Worker and if he is found entitled for his promotion in his own cadre either by way of regular promotion or in absence thereof by way of time bound promotion on the basis of his initial appointment as a Basic Health Worker on 4.3.1976, such promotion must be re-determined so that the petitioner does not become looser at both the ends. In other words, the petitioner despite being reverted to the post of Basic Health Worker would be entitled for his promotion, either regular or time bound, in accordance with law in his own cadre so as to minimize the impact of reduction of his salary upon his reversion from the post of Extension Educator to the post of Basic Health Worker. 21. Subject to the aforementioned observations, clarifications and directions, this writ application fails and is accordingly dismissed.