GAJENDRA THAKUR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application, the petitioners seek issuance of appropriate writ, in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to give promotion on the post of Class III grade in the scale of Rs. 1,200-1,800 from the date the junior persons have been given promotion with all consequential benefits.

(2.) PETITIONERS' case is that they were appointed on Class IV post during the period 1975 to 1992. The respondents-authorities took a decision to give promotion to the post of Class III grade from the employees working in Class IV grade and accordingly the petitioners along with several other persons working on class IV post were interviewed and typing tests were taken and ultimately, a panel was prepared for giving promotion to class III post. It is stated that interview was held in the year, 1994 and the Departmental Promotion Committee found the petitioners eligible for the purpose of giving promotion on Class III-post. It is stated that several persons whose names appear in the panel, have been given promotion on Class III post. It is stated that some of the persons moved this Court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 680/97R seeking similar relief and this Court allowed the writ application in terms of order dated 12.1.98 and, accordingly, all the writ petitioners were given promotion. PETITIONERS' further case is that in 1998, the respondents-authorities again reviewed the case of class IV employees for giving promotion which is evident from the minutes of the proceeding dated 26.3.98. In the said meeting, it was also decided to give promotion to various persons against the vacant post. The petitioners thereafter, filed several representations but no decision for promotion of the petitioners have been taken by the respondents.

(3.) AS noticed above, in the counter-affidavit, the respondents have stated that in 1994 a Committee was constituted for giving promotion to Class III post and the employees were interviewed and typing test was held and, thereafter, a panel was prepared. However, the stand of the respondents is that the petitioners did not qualify in the typing test and, therefore, the question of their promotion does not arise. But, from Annexure 7 to the supplementary affidavit which is a copy of the panel prepared in the year, 1994 it appears that the petitioners were also found tit for promotion. Relevant portion of Annexure-7 is reproduced hereinbelows: