Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2056 DAILYLAW 3 (PAT)

Kanhaiya Prasad v. The State Of Bihar and Ors

CWJC/2056/2017 · 2026-07-08

Bibek Chaudhuri

body2056

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2056 of 2017 ====================================================== Kanhaiya Prasad son of Bhola Prasad Thakur, resident of New Chitragupta Nagar, Road No.2, P.S.- Kankarbagh, District- Patna- 20. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. Principal Secretary, Department of General Administration, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. Secretary, Department of General Administration, Government of Bihar, Patna. 5. Special Secretary, Department of General Administration, Government of Bihar, Patna. 6. Under Secretary, Department of General Administration, Government of Bihar, Patna. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate Mr. Md.Imteyaz Ahmad, Advocate Mr. Shivam, Advocate Ms. Sushmita Mishra, Advocate Mr. Purushottam Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate (AC to Ex G.A.-9) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI ORAL ORDER 6 08-07-2026 In the instant writ petition, a notification issued by the General Administration Department dated 13.07.2016 is under challenge. 2. Learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned Advocate for the State/Respondents are present. 3. This Court has heard the learned Counsels at length. 4. The notification dated 13.07.2016 (Annexure-1 to Patna High Court CWJC No.2056 of 2017(6) dt.08-07-2026 2/4 the writ petition) runs thus:- fcgkj ljdkj lkekU; iz”kklu foHkkx AA vf/klwpukAA iVuk&15] fnukad&13-7-16 la[;k&14@izks0103@14 lk0iz0&9649@ foHkkxh; vf/klwpuk la0&8691 fnukad &17-06-2016 }kjk fcgkj iz”kklfud lsok ds Jh dUgS;k izlkn] dksfV dzekad&428@11 ¼lEizfr lsokfuo`r½] Jh fefFkys”k dqekj] dksfV dzekad&438@11] Jh eks0 c”khj] dksfV dzekad&452@11 ,oa Jh bZ”oj pUnz “kekZ] dksfV dzekad&453@11 lfgr dqy 15 inkf/kdkfj;ksa dks eqgjcan fyQkQk esa muds fy;s j[ks x;s foHkkxh; izksUufr lfefr dh vuq”kalk ,oa foHkkxh; ladYi la0&7457 fnukad&11-09-2002 rFkk foRr foHkkxh; ifji= la0&7020 fnukad&24-12-2005 esa fufgr izko/kkuksa ds vkyksd esa la;qDr lfpo@led{k Lrj esa fnukad&18-06-2014 ls oSpkfjd :Ik ls ,oa fnukad&19-06-2014 ds izHkko ls vkfFkZd ykHk lfgr izksUufr nh x;h gSA lEizfr ;g rF; izdk”k esa vk;k gS fd mi;qZDr pkjksa inkf/kdkfj;ksa ls ojh; dqN inkf/kdkfj;ksa dks foHkkxh; vkns”k Kkikad&11218 fnukad& 12-08-2014 }kjk izksUufr ij yxk;s x;s jksd ds dkj.k la;qDr lfpo@ led{k Lrj esa izksUufr ugha fey ldh gS ftlls izksUufr laca/kh folaxfr mRiUUk gks x;h gSA lkFk gh mi;qZDr pkjksa inkf/kdkfj;ksa ds fy, laHkkfor fjfDr ds fo:) foHkkxh; izksUufr lfefr dh vuq”kalk eqgjcan fyQkQk esa j[kh x;h Fkh rFkk muds fy;s lkekU; Js.kh vUrxZr rRle; in miyC/k ugha FkkA of.kZr fLFkfr esa fuEukafdr pkj inkf/kdkfj;ksa dks foHkkxh; vf/klwpuk la0&8691 fnukad&17-06-2016 }kjk la;qDr lfpo@led{k Lrj esa nh x;h izksUufr dks fnukad&17-06-16 ds izHkko ls jn~n fd;k tkrk gS%& dz0 la0 inkf/kdkjh dk uke dksfV dzekad ¼2011½ 1 2 3 1 Jh dUgS;k izlkn ¼fnukad&31-12-15 dks lsokfuo`r½ 428 2 Jh fefFkys”k dqekj] 438 3 Jh eks0 c”khj 452 4 Jh bZ”oj pUnz “kekZ 453 bl gn rd foHkkxh; vf/klwpuk la0&8691 fnukad&17-06-2016 dks la”kksf/kr le>k tk;sA fcgkj jkT;iky ds vkns'k ls g0@& ¼vfuy dqekj½ ljdkj ds fo'ks"k lfpoA Kkikad 14@izks0 103@14 lk0 iz0&9649@ iVuk&15] fnukad&13-7-16 izfrfyfi% izHkkjh inkf/kdkjh] bZ xtV dks"kkax] foRr foHkkx] fcgkj iVuk dks fcgkj jkti= esa izdk'kukFkZ ¼vkbZ0Vh eSustj] lkekU; iz'kklu foHkkx] iVuk ds ek/;e ls½@ egkys[kkdkj fcgkj] iVuk@ izHkkjh inkf/kdkjh] foRr ¼oS;fDrd Patna High Court CWJC No.2056 of 2017(6) dt.08-07-2026 3/4 nkok fu/kkZj.k dks"kkax½ foHkkx] fcgkj] iVuk@ iz/kku lfpo] eq[;ea=h lfpoky;] fcgkj] iVuk@eq[; lfpo ds iz/kku vkIr lfpo] fcgkj iVuk@lHkh lacaf/kr foHkkx ,oa foHkkxk/;{k@ lHkh lacaf/kr dks"kkxkj inkf/kdkjh@iz/kku lfpo ds iz/kku vkIr lfpo] lkekU; iz'kklu foHkkx] fcgkj iVuk@lHkh lacaf/kr inkf/kdkjh@ izca/kd] vkbZ0Vh] lkekU; iz'kklu foHkkx] fcgkj iVuk dks foHkkxh; osclkbZV ij viyksM djus ,oa lh0Mh rS;kj dj foRr foHkkx] fcgkj] iVuk dks Hkstus gsrq@ lkekU; iz'kklu foHkkx] fcgkj] iVuk ds lHkh inkf/kdkjh@ iz'kk[kk inkf/kdkjh] iz'kk[kk&2]8 ,oa pkfj=h dks"kkax] lkekU; iz'kklu foHkkx] fcgkj] iVuk dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dk;kZFkZ izsf"krA g0@& ljdkj ds fo'ks"k lfpoA 5. Plain reading of the notification suggests that the petitioner was a member of Bihar Administrative Service and he retired on superannuation on 31.12.2015. Subsequent to his notification, he was given notional promotion with pay protection with effect from 19.06.2014 in the cadre of Joint Secretary, Government of Bihar. 6. Subsequently, after the expiry of about two years on 13.06.2016 the impugned notification was issued stating inter-alia that since four persons, who were senior to him were not granted promotion due to one reason or other and their promotion was withheld, the petitioner and other three employees would not be notionally promoted in the Joint Secretary Cadre. 7. No reason was assigned as to why the promotion of four officers senior to the petitioner was withheld. Promotion may be withheld on number of reasons, viz., due to pendency of Patna High Court CWJC No.2056 of 2017(6) dt.08-07-2026 4/4 departmental proceeding, pendency of criminal case against the Government employee, dereliction of duty and similar other reasons. However, when the petitioner had no such issue and his service record is stated to be clean, there is no reason to withhold his promotion only on the ground that some of his seniors were not promoted. 8. Promotion is not a matter of seniority alone, promotion governs on the principle of seniority-cum-merit. If a senior incumbent is found to be not meritorious, then his junior incumbent, the authority has every right to promote the junior incumbent. 9. Therefore, while setting aside the impugned notification dated 13.07.2016, the respondent no.3 is directed to consider the copy of the writ petition, as a representation and decide the case of the petitioner on merit, within six weeks from the date of this order. 10. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is thus disposed. mdrashid/ Mriudula (Bibek Chaudhuri, J) U