CHANDRAKANT CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioners have assailed the validity of the order dated 27.4.2000 passed by the Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, contained in Annexure 1, rejecting their claim for promotion from Class IV to Class iii. The said order was passed pursuant to the direction of this Court on the writ petition filed by the petitioners earlier.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has contended that the Director has assigned three reasons for rejecting the claim of the petitioners, namely, (i) there was no vacant post for promotion; (ii) no test as claimed by the petitioners was ever held and (iii) the vacancies are to be filled up by the Commission after taking examination. According to the learned counsel, all these three grounds are erroneous and contrary to the fact as well as the provisions. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the Government resolution no. 2215 dated 11.2.1985 issued by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, which provides for filling up 25% of Class III post from those working in Class IV and possessing required qualification and age by holding limited examination.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the State has submitted that the perusal of Government Resolution dated 6th December, 1995, which was published in the Bihar Gazette and has been brought on record as Annexure B, shows that the said resolution has been taken in supersession of earlier resolutions. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the State that as per Annexure B, there is no provision like the one as provided in Government resolution no. 2215 dated 11.2.1985, upon which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that it is true that even after the said notification, some cases have been considered for promotion from Class IV to Ciass III but this was done in the light of the direction given by this Court. Learned counsel submitted that the Department did not bring the said Government resolution dated 6th December,1995 to the notice of this Court and in ignorance thereof the direction was given, upon which some cases were considered but, according to the learned counsel for the State, the petitioners cannot take advantage out of it as neither they have claimed that their juniors have been promoted nor they have based their claim on such promotion, which on the face of Annexure B were illegal and bad.