DHRUB NARAYAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Initially, the petitioner had also prayed for quashing of the Government notification, by which the respondents 5 to 7 were posted/promoted as the Dy. Director, Mines. However, on 17-1-1997 when this matter was finally heard Mr. Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the earlier order of this court in the case of Gurusharan Pd. Singh, on the basis of which the petitioner is claiming his promotion, respondent Nos. 5 to 7 may not be necessary parties in case this Court finds that the case of the petitioner stands on identical footing in view of the availability of regular vacancy. Accordingly, on permission granted by this Court, .he deleted the names of respondent Nos. 5 to 7.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner in this writ application is that he has been arbitrarily denied of his due promotion initially as District Mining Officer with effect from 1-2-88 and consequently as Dy. Director, Mines since before his juniors have been promoted and/or posted in the said capacity. Accordingly, it has been prayed that a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus be issued commanding the respondents to consider and notify the petitioner as District Mining Officer with effect from 1-2-88 in the scale of pay of Rs. 3000- 4500, and to promote him to the post of Dy. Director, Mines in the scale of Rs. 3000-4500, in accordance with the seniority.

(3.) In short, the relevant facts are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Mining Officer vide notification No. 5988 dated 16-10-73 and joined the said post on 27-10-73. He was confirmed in the said capacity with effect from 1-3-76 and was allowed to Cross Efficiency Bar with effect from 17-10- 79. The Finance Department issued notification No. 3/PRC-3/81/F-10770 dated 3012-81 (annexure-3) providing for grant of junior selection grade as well as time-bound promotion on 9-5-83. The State Government issued notification with respect to grant of time-bound promotion by conversion or interchanging of the post on completion of ten years if satisfactory service if no selection grade post is created. The case of the petitioner was also considered, but was, however, not found fit for promotion.