IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 6410 of 2018 ----- Ranjita Pushpa Ekka, Widow of Late Pradeep Kujur------ Petitioner(s) Versus 1.Central Coalfields Limited, a subsidiary of Coal India Limited, a Government of India Undertaking, having its registered office at Darbhanga House, Ranchi, P.O. Ranchi, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi its Chairman-cum-Managing Director 2.Chairman-cum- Managing Director, Central Coalfields Limited, at Darbhanga House, Ranchi, P.O. Ranchi, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi 3.General Manager, Personnel & Industrial Relation, Central Coalfields Limited, at Darbhanga House, Ranchi, P.O. Ranchi, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi 4.General Manager, Barka Sayal Area of Central Coalfields Limited, P.O. Sayal, P.S. Bhurkunda, District- Ramgarh 5.Project Officer, Urimari Open Cast Project, Urimari, Central Coalfields Limited, P.O. Sayal, P.S. Barkagaon, District- Hazaribagh ------ Respondent(s) …… CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashim Kr. Sahani, Advocate Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent : Ms. Darshana Poddar Mishra, Advocate …...... 08 / 06.03.2025: Petitioner prays to quash the order dated 24.04.2018 by which the promotion of the petitioner which was granted in post of Clerk Grade-III vide office Order No.4498 dated 06.10.2016 was recalled. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after working for two years and after getting promotion in the proper manner the respondents could not have reverted the petitioner. He fairly admits that before issuing the order a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner to which the petitioner replied. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent- Central Coalfields Limited submits that promotion process was initiated by the DPC. Along with the petitioner name of one, Babulal Manjhi was also considered. On complain of Babulal Manjhi, it was detected that one of the questions which Babulal Manjhi had answered was wrongly evaluated and infact his correct answer was not treated to be wrong, so no marks was awarded. The committee thereafter considered the answer of question No.13 and found that the Babulal Manjhi had correctly answered the said question, but marks for the same were not awarded erroneously. Thereafter, when the marks were allotted for that answer, it was found that he had obtained more marks than the petitioner, thus, promotion list was revised. 4. From the documents and arguments of the parties, I find that the name of petitioner was considered for promotion, so was of Babulal Manjhi. A correct answer of Babulal Manjhi was not taken note of by the respondents and number to the answer was not awarded to him. On the objection of Babulal Manjhi, when it was found that he had correctly answered the question, the authorities allotted due marks to Babulal Manjhi, which resulted in revision of the merit list. Babulal Manjhi ultimately obtained more marks than this petitioner. The respondents have corrected their mistake and rectified the same. When a genuine mistake had occurred, the respondents were within their jurisdiction to rectify the same. As a consequence of the aforesaid rectification, Babulal Manjhi had obtained more marks than the petitioner and was promoted to the post of Clerk Grade-III, since, there was limited number of posts. As Babulal Manjhi was last entrant, this petitioner had to be reverted as the result of such revision of the list. 5. It is also been fairly stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that subsequently the petitioner was promoted on 06.07.2020 to the post of Clerk Grade-III and thereafter on 31.10.2023 to the post of LDC also. 6. Considering the aforesaid fact and admitted position, I find that no illegality has been committed by the respondents, in reverting the petitioner from the post of Clerk Grade-III to Category-I vide office Order dated 24.04.2018. Thus, there is no merit in this writ petition, accordingly, the same stands dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) R.S.