SHRI RAGHUBAR DAYAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S .K.Katriar and Kishore K.Mandal JJ.

(2.) THIS appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court is with respect to the order dated 29.4.1999, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 9338 of 1998 (Raghubar Dayal Singh V/s. The State of Bihar and Others), whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition in part. A brief history of facts is essential to dispose of this appeal. By order dated 30.1.1967 (Annexure -1 herein),the writ -petitioner (appellant herein) was appointed on a purely provisional basis as a Treasure Guard. He functioned as such for a little more than five years, whereafter he was promoted to a Class -Ill post, vide Order No. 2762, dated 8.8.1972 (Annexure -2 herein). The same, inter alia, stipulated that the appellant shall be liable to be reverted to his previous post under the circumstances indicated therein. The appellant was promoted to the level of Upper Division Clerk with effect from 1.4.1979, vide order dated 29.4.1986 (Annexure -1 to the writ petition). He was given the first time -bound promotion with effect from 9.8.1982, vide order dated 24.9.1986 (Annexure -2 to the writ petition). He was visited by the order dated 9.5.1998 (Annexure -5 to the writ petition), whereby grant of first time -bound promotion to him was recalled, and equally his promotion to Upper Division Clerk was also recalled, leading to the present writ petition. The learned Single Judge held that the writ petitioner -appellant was not entitled to the benefit of first time -bound promotion because he had, prior thereto, been granted two promotions. He also held that the writ petitioner was liable to refund the excess money drawn by him consequent upon the grant of the benefit of the first time -bound promotion. In so far as the second aspect of the matter is concerned, the learned Single Judge upheld the promotion of the writ -petitioner to Upper Division Clerk and set aside that part of the impugned order. Hence this appeal.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant raises a grievance before this Court that the writ petitioner 'sappointment to Class -Ill post was direct recruitment, and was not a case of promotion. The contention is stated only to be rejected. On a plain reading of the order giving him the promotion, the order of promotion (Annexure -2) describes him as a Treasure Guard and also incorporates the following clause: "Local Language" If it were a case of direct recruitment to Class -Ill, it would not have mentioned the petitioner 's previous designation, nor would be the question of his reversion arisen in the circumstances indicated therein. Furthermore, no material other than the order of promotion has been placed before us to take a different view. The contention is rejected.