JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying for a direction upon the respondent-authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for his promotion to the post of Junior Electrical Engineer retrospectively on and from the date his juniors have been promoted in pursuance to the order dated 22.01.2001 and also the direction passed in C.W.J.C. No. 230 of 2000 (R). 3. From the supplementary affidavit dated 29.01.2019 filed by the petitioner; at paragraph 6 it has been admitted that the petitioner has been promoted to the post of Junior Engineer vide order dated 21.06.2007 in pursuance to the interview and to the post of Assistant Engineer vide order dated 19.06.2017. Thus, now the prayer of the petitioner is only to the effect of granting retrospective promotion to him from the date juniors have been promoted to the said post with consequential benefits. 4. Ms. M.M.Pal, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that by a notification dated 22.02.1997 the Joint Secretary informed the General Manager-cum-chief Engineer Patratu Thermal Power Station/G.M.-cum-Chief Engineer/Area Electricity Board, Ranchi, Dhanbad, and Bhagalpur and all other concerned authorities to send the detail information of such workmen of the Board who had obtained Diploma in Electrical Mech. Engineering and has applied for appointment to the post of Junior Electrical Engineer as the post was available under 25% quota and accordingly; the name of the petitioner was sent along with details. When the petitioner was waiting for his promotion order, an employment notice dated 12.04.2000 was issued against which Bihar State Electricity Board, Electric Supply Workers Union in a representatives capacity; moved before the High Court for quashing the advertisement and also for a direction upon the B.S.E.B to absorb them to the post of Junior Engineer as per the provisions of Bihar State Electricity Board, Junior Electrical Engineer (General) Cadre Rules. She further submits that the said writ application was disposed of with a direction to the respondent-Board to consider the case of all of those employees on the basis of the rules and procedure for appointment existing in the year, 1997. She further submits that the said writ application was disposed of with a direction to the respondent-Board to consider the case of all of those employees on the basis of the rules and procedure for appointment existing in the year, 1997. Due to Bihar Re-organization Act, 2000, the State of Jharkhand came into existence on 15.11.2000 and subsequently; the Government of Jharkhand, issued a notification on 10.01.2001 creating the Jharkhand State Electricity Board under the provisions of Section 1 (4) of Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 read with Section 62 (4) of Bihar Re-organization Act, 2000 and finally the Jharkhand State Electricity Board started functioning w.e.f. 20.03.2001. In the meantime, a contempt application was filed and an order was passed on 21.02.2003. In pursuance to the aforesaid direction passed in the contempt application an Amendment Notice No. 01 of 2003 was issued by the Secretary on 19.04.2003, whereby it was informed that the employee of the erstwhile Bihar State Electricity Board including the petitioners of the above mentioned writ application/Contempt case who are qualified to be considered as per Employment Notice No. 01 of 2003 are called for examination of their records as per the schedule. 5. Ms. M.M.Pal, learned senior counsel submits that in the Amendment Notice No. 01 of 2003 the date of reporting for examination for Ranchi, Dhanbad, Hazaribagh, Dumka and Jamshedpur was fixed on 28.04.2003 and 29.04.2003; but, unfortunately the Dhanbad Division received the said advertisement on 02.05.2003 i.e. after expiry of the date of interview for examination of the records and as a result thereof; the petitioner could not appear in the said interview for examination of the records held on 28.04.2003 and 29.04.2003, respectively. Subsequently on 26.04.2003, another notice in respect of Employment Notice No. 01 of 2003 was issued whereby it was informed that all other officers whose name does not figure in the earlier notice; will be held on 02.05.2003 and 03.05.2003, respectively. By the said notice the date of examination of record/interview was fixed on 02.05.2003, but this time also the Dhanbad Division received the notice on 08.05.2003 i.e. after the date of interview for examination of records. 6. Ms. By the said notice the date of examination of record/interview was fixed on 02.05.2003, but this time also the Dhanbad Division received the notice on 08.05.2003 i.e. after the date of interview for examination of records. 6. Ms. M.M.Pal, learned senior counsel submits that the grievance of the present petitioner is that due to the reason beyond his control the petitioner could not appear on the date fixed for the date of examination of record/interview and as a result all juniors/contemporary were promoted who appeared in the interview though they were appointed along with this petitioner. She further submits that the petitioner was the only eligible candidate from Dhanbad Division whose case was to be considered for promotion on the post of Junior Electrical Engineer against the Employment No. 01 of 2003, but since he failed to appear in the aforesaid two interviews due to late receipt of Advertisement notice in the Dhanbad Office itself; the petitioner cannot be held responsible for that. She contended that in counter-affidavit of B.S.E.B at para 4, it has been admitted that the date of examination of record and interview for the candidates who were posted under Dhanbad Area was fixed on 28.04.2003 and 29.04.2003. However, petitioner who was posted under Sub-Station, Dhanbad was supposed to appear in interview on the above dates, however he did not appeared, although the petitioner submitted an application to consider his case on 22.05.2003, but till the time all formalities were over and even the notification at the end of BSEB was issued on 05.05.2003. Relying upon the aforesaid averments made in the counter-affidavit filed by B.S.E.B she contends that admittedly; the petitioner applied for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer, however, since the notice itself was not received in the office of Dhanbad Sub-Division, he was prevented from the examination of record/interview. As such, since he is the only qualified eligible candidate from Dhanbad division, his promotion should be considered from the date from which the juniors as well as the contemporaries were given promotion to the post of Junior Electrical Engineer. 7. Ms. Pal, concluded her argument by submitting that case of the petitioner should be considered for promotion from the date on 12.05.2003 itself and all consequential benefits should be extended to the petitioner. 7. Ms. Pal, concluded her argument by submitting that case of the petitioner should be considered for promotion from the date on 12.05.2003 itself and all consequential benefits should be extended to the petitioner. In support of his contention learned senior counsel relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Hrishikesh Pradhan Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 2003 (4) JLJR 178 , wherein at para 9 and 10 the court has held as under: “9. In the opinion of this Court, the respondents are merely procrastinating the matter right from 1990 without actually discharging their duties. Normally, in matters of promotion, it is said that promotion is not a right and that a person is entitled only to be considered for promotion. But in this case, the discrimination is so glaring and the excuses of the respondents are so lame and the manner of suffering of the petitioner is so acute that this Court, following a Division Bench Judgment in the case of Dr. Paras Nath Prasad v. State of Bihar, reported in 1990 (2) PLJR 248 , with special reference to paragraph 20 thereof, comes to a conclusion that this is a fit case in which a direction may be issued to the respondents to promote the petitioner with effect from the due date and accordingly fix salary, allowances and other benefits and to also fix his position in service so that consequential retiral benefits may be given to him. 10. The writ application is accordingly allowed and the reliefs sought for by the petitioner in this case are granted. Considering the long period during which the petitioner has been put under miseries including enforced litigation, this Court directs the concerned respondents to complete the entire exercise within the shortest possible period but not beyond a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Let appropriate mandamus therefore be issued. The writ application is allowed. There shall however be no order as to costs.” 8. Per contra, Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy appearing on behalf of the Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, canvassed two folds argument. Firstly, he vehemently opposed to the contention that notice was not received and thus the petitioner is entitled for promotion because admittedly, the notice was also published in the news papers. Per contra, Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy appearing on behalf of the Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, canvassed two folds argument. Firstly, he vehemently opposed to the contention that notice was not received and thus the petitioner is entitled for promotion because admittedly, the notice was also published in the news papers. Secondly, he contended that the affidavit which has been relied upon by learned senior counsel has been sworn by the Bihar State Electricity Board and Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited is not accountable for any averments made by the Bihar State Electricity Board. He further submits that the Bihar State Electricity Board in his affidavit has also contended that the advertisement was also published in the news papers and this statement has not been controverted by this petitioner. 9. Mr. Roy, further submits that in the event writ application being allowed and the petitioner being allowed seniority, the candidates named in the supplementary affidavit would be adversely affected, in so far as their seniority in the gradation list would change which may be against their interest and as such, without hearing them it is not possible to allow this writ application. Further, since no seniority list has been annexed; as such it is difficult to say that any juniors were promoted to the post of Junior Electrical Engineer. Relying upon the aforesaid facts, Mr. Roy contended that the instant writ application deserves to be dismissed and at best the petitioner may be given liberty to approach the concerned respondents for redressal of his grievance. 10. In reply to the aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Ms. Pal, learned senior counsel referred to the supplementary affidavit dated 24.06.2019 and submits that the petitioner for seeking necessary information; made an application under RTI Act and all the information have been supplied to the petitioner vide letter dated 02.04.2019, wherein it has been categorically mentioned that the amendment notice has been received by the Bihar State Electricity Board, Dhanbad circle on 02.04.2003 and an Employment Notice no. 01 of 2003 dated 26.04.2003 was received in the office of Dhanbad circle on 8th May 2003. On the basis of this information, Ms. Pal contended that on both occasions the said notice was received in the Dhanbad Office beyond time. 01 of 2003 dated 26.04.2003 was received in the office of Dhanbad circle on 8th May 2003. On the basis of this information, Ms. Pal contended that on both occasions the said notice was received in the Dhanbad Office beyond time. She further submits that no paper publication has been annexed in the instant counter-affidavit filed by the Bihar State Electricity Board, Dhanbad. She further submits that even the Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited has filed its counter-affidavit, wherein it has been stated that since the petitioner did not appear in the interview, he was not considered. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the averments made in the respective affidavits; admittedly, the Advertisement Notice No. 01 of 2003 was received in the Dhanbad Office of the Respondent-Board much after the date of examination of records/interview. It further transpires that when another date of interview/verification of record was fixed by the respondent-Board; again the said notice was received after the date of interview/verification of records. As such, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for late receipt of advertisement Notice/documents at the office level. The ground taken by the Respondents to deny the claim of the petitioner is that the petitioner who was posted under Dhanbad Sub-Station, Dhanbad was supposed to appear in interview for verification of documents on the above dates; however, he did not appear, and by the time the petitioner submitted application to consider his case on 22.05.2003; all formalities were over and even the notification at the end of BSEB was issued on 05.05.2003. This ground of denial is not sustainable in the eye of law, inasmuch as, non-appearance of the petitioner on the date fixed by the Respondent-Board cannot be attributed to the petitioner for the obvious reason that the Advertisement Notice was received in the Dhanbad Circle after the date of such interview. When the petitioner was unaware of the date of interview for examination of records; he could not appear suo motu. There is no document to suggest by the respondent-Boards that any other person appeared in the interview or for verification of the records form Dhanbad Circle. In view of the aforesaid findings the petitioner deserves consideration when all contemporary/juniors have been given promotion to the post of Junior Engineer who appeared in the interview for verification of documents. 12. There is no document to suggest by the respondent-Boards that any other person appeared in the interview or for verification of the records form Dhanbad Circle. In view of the aforesaid findings the petitioner deserves consideration when all contemporary/juniors have been given promotion to the post of Junior Engineer who appeared in the interview for verification of documents. 12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the firm opinion that the petitioner is entitled for promotion with the retrospective date w.e.f. 12.05.2003 i.e. from the date when the persons Junior/Contemporary were given promotion to the post of Junior Electrical Engineer. 13. It goes without saying that while extending the benefit of promotion to the post of Junior Electrical Engineer from 12.05.2003, the respondents would be free to verify the necessary documents and claim of the petitioner in accordance with the rules. However, since the matter is very old; the entire process shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order and all consequential benefits shall be provided to her in accordance with law within a further period of six weeks. 14. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ application stands allowed and disposed of. The pending I.As stands disposed of.