Harishankar Ojha vs State of Bihar and Others

Narayan Roy, J.—Heard counsel for the parties.

In this application, the grievance of the petitioner is that he could have been considered for promotion with effect from 22.6.1985 and not with effect from 28.11.1994.

It appears that vide notification, as contained in Annexure 1 dated 9.9.1997, the petitioner was promoted to the post of ASI with effect from 28.11.1994. Against the order of promotion, the petitioner made representation before the authority concerned to reckon his seniority with effect from 22.6.1985. The representation of the petitioner was considered and rejected by the authorities holding that since the petitioner was facing several departmental proceedings and in some of the cases major punishments were given, therefore, after disposal of the three departmental proceedings his case was considered finally and he was found eligible for promotion to the rank of ASI with effect from 28.11.1994.

From the pleadings of the parties, it is not manifest that even though the petitioner was awarded certain punishments, both minor as well as major, he would be eligible for promotion after three years of the alleged occurrence or from the date of punishment.

From the counter affidavit, however, it appears that one major punishment was given to the petitioner on 28.11.1991 and just after three years the case of the petitioner for promotion was considered and he has been promoted with effect from 28.11.1994.

The grievance of the petitioner, in that view of the matter, is not at all sustainable, as the case was considered after a lapse of three years from the date of punishment.

The authorities, however, have again examined the case of the petitioner pursuant to his representation and rejected the same as the petitioner was only found eligible for promotion after a lapse of three years, with effect from 28.11.1994.

For the reasons aforementioned, therefore, I do not find any merit in this application.

It is, accordingly, dismissed.