Kapildeo Shukla v. The State Of Bihar

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Having regard to the following prayer made in this writ application: “for issuance of an appropriate writ / order / direction to quash the order contained in Memo. No. 245 dated 28.2.2013 of Director, Primary Education whereby and whereunder the representation filed by the petitioner to determine his seniority at par with them who were appointed in lower Division of Subordinate Education Service (L.D. of SES) in the year 1975 in the first transaction by R.D.D.E. Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur and to grant monetary benefits has been rejected" 2 this court is of the considered view that merely because the petitioner’s name was included in a panel of thirty persons in 1975 would not have vested him to get regular promotion Subordinate Education Service. In fact, it is the case of the petitioner himself that he was not promoted from the said panel and only ten persons were promoted in the year 1975.

This aspect has also been considered by the competent authority while passing impugned order dated

28.2.2013 wherein it has been recorded as follows: ^^ Jh ’kqDy ;g lk{; izLrqr ugha dj lds dh frjgqr ize. My vUrxZr fufeZr mDr iSuy esa muls duh; dks o"kZ 1975 esa voj f’k{kk lsok esa izksUur dj fu; qDr fd;k x;k Fkk A dkxtkrksa ls ;g Hkh Li"V ugha gksrk gS fd frjgqr ize. My vUrxZr Jh ’kqDy ls duh; fdlh vH;fFkZ;ksa dks izksUufr dj fu; qfDr fcgkj voj f’k{kk lsok esa dh x;h A blls ;g Hkh ifjyf{kr gksrk gS fd o"kZ 1975 ,oa 1980 dh izksUufr ds mijkUr fu; qfDr ,d leO;ogkj esa ugha gks dj vyx & vyx gqbZ Fkh A fuEu voj f’k{kk lsok dk lEoxZ ize. Myh; Lrj dk gksrk gS A blh ifjizs{; es a oknh }kjk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] iVuk esa nk;j lh0 MCY;w0 ts0 lh0 la[;k & 3832@2007 lkFk esa of.kZr vU; ize. My ds ,d vH;FkhZ Jh ckyeqdqUn izlkn dk ftdz fd;k x;k gS] ftudks muls de vad izkIr gqvk Fkk] vizklafxd gSA**

The aforesaid findings recorded by the Director, Primary Education cannot be held to be bad either in fact or in law. The case of promotion of any incumbent on a regular basis emerges only either on the day he is not considered for promotion while allowing junior to be promoted or he is held to be 3 disqualified on the ground which cannot be sustained in law. In the case of the petitioner, his promotion was not made in the year 1975 because only ten persons of the panel were promoted and none of them were junior to the petitioner.

It is also not in dispute that the petitioner, on account of not being granted regular promotion, was allowed time bound promotion in terms of the Government Resolution dated

30.12.1981 only because that he was not given regular promotion. In any event the petitioner had retired on 31.01.1995 and a stale matter of 1975 cannot be allowed to be raised in this writ application which has been filed in 2013 after a delay almost 38 years.

That being so this writ application is wholly misconceived and ill advised and is, accordingly, dismissed both on the ground of delay as well as on merits. A.Ahmad/- (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)