JUDGMENT : 1. This interlocutory application has been filed on behalf the petitioner for praying amendment in the relief portion of the main writ petition and inserting the new relief, apart from the reliefs already prayed for, in view of development which has taken place during the pendency of the writ petition. 2. For the reasons stated in the instant application, this court is inclined to entertain the same. 3. Accordingly, this application is allowed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make necessary correction in the relief portion of the main writ petition. 5. I.A.No. 4299 of 2010 stands disposed of. W.P(S) No.5735 of 2009 6. Heard Mr. Saurav Arun, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anup Kumar Agarwal, learned J.C to G.A V for the respondents. 7. In this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ, particularly a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the respondents to consider her case forthwith and grant her promotion on the post of Joint Secretary from the year 1994 or at least from the date when the person junior to her has been given promotion on the said post i.e. with effect from 16.11.2004 and also for all consequential benefits. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner joined Bihar Administrative Service in the year 1978 i.e on 9.8.1978 as Deputy Collector. Thereafter, she was granted regular promotion in Junior Selection Grade i.e equivalent to Sub Divisional Officer with effect from 31.12.1983, as is evident from the notification having Memo No. 2703 dated 2.3.1989, issued by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, wherein the name of the petitioner stands at Sl. No. 161. It is stated that the petitioner was given Senior Selection Grade (equivalent to the post of Additional District Magistrate) with effect from the date of assuming the charge vide notification no. 11774 dated 17.10.1989 wherein the name of the petitioner stands at Sl. No. 2. It is stated that the minimum service required for promotion to the post of Joint Secretary from the post of Senior Selection Grade is five years and the petitioner was eligible to be promoted on the post of Joint Secretary in the year 1994 as she had already completed five years' service on the post of Senior Selection Grade (A.D.M rank) as is counted from 17.10.1989. But in-spite of vacancy, the case of the petitioner was not considered and she was not given promotion on the post of Joint Secretary, though there was no criminal or departmental proceeding pending against her and she had a clean service record. 9. It is further submitted that the petitioner made several representations before the respondent-authority on different dates for granting her promotion to the post of Joint Secretary as several persons, who have completed five years of service in A.D.M rank, were given promotion to the rank of Joint Secretary, whereas the case of the petitioner was not considered, although she was given Junior Selection Grade and Senior Selection Grade w.e.f. 31.12.1983 and 17.10.1989 and though she was eligible for being considered for promotion to the post of Joint Secretary in the year 1994 itself and also in-spite of the fact that vacancy of the post of Joint Secretary was existing at the relevant time. 10. It is further stated that the petitioner filed several representations, including representations dated 29.5.2001 and 17.1.2003 before the respondent authority but the grievances of the petitioner was not redressed and being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent-authority, the petitioner had to move before this court by filing W.P.(S) no. 6051 of 2003, which was dismissed vide order dated 15.5.2006. It is further stated that against the order dated 15.5.2006 passed in W.P.(S) no. 6051 of 2003 the petitioner had to move before this court by filing an appeal being L.P.A No. 292 of 2006 and a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.9.2006 had given liberty to the petitioner to file detail representation before the respondents and it was also directed that the respondents shall consider the claim of the petitioner in its proper perspective and decide the claim of the petitioner by passing an order in accordance with law. It is stated that considering the order passed by this court in L.P.A. No. 292 of 2006, the petitioner was granted promotion on the post of Joint Secretary, by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa vide notification no. 6435 communicated vide Memo no. 6453 dated 2.12.2006 and accordingly, the petitioner took charge of the post of Joint Secretary on 4.12.2006. 11. 6435 communicated vide Memo no. 6453 dated 2.12.2006 and accordingly, the petitioner took charge of the post of Joint Secretary on 4.12.2006. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that though the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee was held on 17.5.2004 for granting promotion to the post of Joint Secretary and the names of the petitioner as well as one Samson Soy, who is junior to the petitioner, were considered and though the name of the petitioner stands at Sl. No. 15 whereas the name of Mr. Soy stands at Sl No. 18, the petitioner has not been granted promotion due to non-availability of Annual Confidential Report and Mr. Samson Soy, who was junior to the petitioner, was granted promotion with effect from 16.11.2004, which is evident from the notification dated 16.11.2004, communicated vide no. 117 dated 16.11.2004. 12. It is thus stated that the petitioner has been deprived of the promotion to the post of Joint Secretary only due to the latches on the part of the respondent-State as her A.C.R was not placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee, meeting of which was held on 17..5.2004. It is further stated that during pendency of the writ application, one order has been issued vide Memo No. 6348 dated 23.10.2010 by respondent no. 2, the Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, by which prayer of the petitioner for promotion with effect from 16.11.2004, the date from which Junior to the petitioner, namely, Samson Soy, has been granted promotion, has been rejected on the ground of non-availability of A.C.R of the petitioner. It is evident from the order dated 23.10.2010 that meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee was held on 17.5.2004 for granting promotion on the post of Joint Secretary or equivalent post and recommended that due to non-availability of A.C.R, the case of the petitioner has been kept pending whereas admittedly the person junior to the petitioner, namely, Samson Soy, has been granted promotion vide notification No. 113 dated 16.11.2004. It is further stated that it is also evident from the order dated 23.10.2010 that the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Joint Secretary or equivalent post was considered on 17.5.2004 but due to non-availability of the A.C.R of the petitioner for the relevant period, recommendation for promotion of the petitioner was not made. 13. It is further stated that it is also evident from the order dated 23.10.2010 that the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Joint Secretary or equivalent post was considered on 17.5.2004 but due to non-availability of the A.C.R of the petitioner for the relevant period, recommendation for promotion of the petitioner was not made. 13. It is further stated that the respondents being the custodian of the A.C.R., for non-availability of the A.C.R. of the petitioner, the respondents are solely responsible and as such the petitioner is entitled for promotion on the post of Joint Secretary at least from the date when junior to her has been granted the said promotion. It is further state that for non-availability of A.C.R, the petitioner cannot be held responsible and cannot be denied promotion which was due to her and also in view of the fact that she was fully eligible for being granted promotion to the post of Joint Secretary. 14. To substantiate the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision, rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Anr. Vs. Hemraj Singh Chauhan & Ors., as reported in (2010)4 S.C.C. 290 . Paragraph 48 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under :- “48.This court is satisfied that in this case, for the delayed exercise of statutory function the Government has not offered any plausible explanation. The respondents cannot be made in any way responsible for the delay. In such a situation, as in the instant case, the directions given by the High Court cannot be said to be unreasonable. In any event , this Court reiterates those very direction in exercise of its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India subject to the only rider that in normal cases the provision of Rule 4(2) of the said Cadre Rules cannot be construed retrospectively”. 15. On the extent of the above judgment, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the aforesaid case in which it has been held that if there is any latches on the part of the State for placing the A.C.R before the D.P.C, the petitioner cannot held responsible for the same. On the extent of the above judgment, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the aforesaid case in which it has been held that if there is any latches on the part of the State for placing the A.C.R before the D.P.C, the petitioner cannot held responsible for the same. He has further relied upon decision in the case of Suryadeo Prasad Vs State of Jharkhand and Ors reported in 2010(3) J.C.R 238(Jhr) and in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Jagannath Achyut Karandikar reported in AIR 1989 SC 1133 . 16. Mr. Anupam Kumar Agarwal J.C. To G.A.-V refuting the arguments of the petitioner, submitted that this writ petition is fit to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches, as the petitioner has approached this court after much delay and there is no explanation for such delay. 17. To substantiate his argument he has relied upon the decision, rendered by this Court in the case of Surya Nath Pandey Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., as reported in 2015(1) J.B.C.J. 30. He has further relied upon a decision, rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors Vs. Chaman Rana, as reported in (2018)5 S.C.C 798 . He has further relied upon a decision, rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.R. Kapoor & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., as reported in (1989)4 S.C.C. 71 . He has also relied upon a decision, rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.S.N. Rao Vs. State of Orissa & Ors., as reported in (2002)6 S.C.C. 478 . On the basis of the aforesaid judgments, he submits that the petitioner has approached this court at a much belated stage and as such she is not entitled to get further promotion and thus, the writ petition is fit to be dismissed as the petitioner has already been promoted to the post of Joint Secretary with effect from 2.12.2006. 18. On the basis of the aforesaid judgments, he submits that the petitioner has approached this court at a much belated stage and as such she is not entitled to get further promotion and thus, the writ petition is fit to be dismissed as the petitioner has already been promoted to the post of Joint Secretary with effect from 2.12.2006. 18. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides, this Court finds that the petitioner has been promoted to the post of Joint Secretary with effect from 2.11.2006 and now she is claiming her promotion to the said post with effect from 16.11.2004 on the plea that junior to her has been granted promotion to the said post with effect from that date. This court also finds that there is a much delay on the part of the State to produce the A.C.R. of the petitioner before the D.P.C. while the case of the petitioner was being considered, particularly taking into account the order dated 21.9.2006 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A No. 292 of 2006 and thus contention of the learned counsel for the State and the judgments relied upon by the State are of no much help in favour of the State. 19. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records this court finds that this is an admitted fact that in the order at Annexre-7, annexed with I.A. No. 4299 of 2010, it is mentioned that A.C.R of the petitioner was not placed before the D.P.C. at the relevant time and thus, it is apparent that it is only due to the latches on the part of the State, A.C.R. of the petitioner was not produced before the D.P.C., while the case of the petitioner was being considered for promotion and as such, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the same for not getting promotion to the post of Joint Secretary with effect from the said date. 20. In the light of the above facts and circumstances of the case, this court is inclined to entertain this writ petition and accordingly, this court directs respondent no. 20. In the light of the above facts and circumstances of the case, this court is inclined to entertain this writ petition and accordingly, this court directs respondent no. 2 to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Joint Secretary with effect from 16.11.2004 i.e. the date when junior to the petitioner has been promoted and consequently the order dated 23.10.2010 issued by respondent no.2 is set aside, so far as the petitioner is concerned. 21. This writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.