TAPEN SEN, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. V.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. No body appears on behalf of the respondents.
(2.) MR . Vijay Pratap Singh learned counsel for the petitioner has produced for the perusal of this Court two Judgments delivered by the then Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court delivered in the cases of Sant Kumar Sinha and Alakh Niranjan being, CWJC, Nos. 3068/1994 (R) and 3057/1994 (R). In those writ applications, the petitioners therein had initially challenged the order dated 07.06.1994 and 29.09.1994 and other orders by reason whereof the orders of promotion granted to 41 persons working on the post of Block Extension Educator were ordered to be cancelled and show cause notices were directed to be issued respectively. According to Mr. V.P, Singh, the aforementioned writ applications were allowed and it was held that even assuming for the sake of argument that promotion of those petitioners were irregular. But the fact remained that the petitioners therein had worked on the promoted post for 11 years during which they were provided training and both of them had gathered efficiency and experience. According to Mr. V.P. Singh, the Court also held that it was settled that if a person is allowed to function on a higher post for a considerably long period of time, he should not be disturbed even if his promotion was irregular. Resultantly, the writ applications were allowed and the orders were set aside and the respondents were directed to provide consequential benefits including arrears and salary, if any, within a period of 4 months etc.
(3.) IN the instant case, the petitioner Chitranjan Prasad Verma was also noticed vide Annexure 1/1 appended to the supplementary affidavit and the order of cancellation of their promotion was communicated by annexure 7, i.e. order dated 29.9.1994, Mr. V.P. Singh states that this case is squarely covered by the Judgments delivered in the aforementioned cases and submits that those petitioners having succeeded in the above mentioned writ applications, there is no reason why this petitioner should be deprived of the benefits of the said Judgment. There appears to be substance and force in what Mr. V.P. Singh has submitted. If what he has, therefore, submitted is factually correct, then there is no reason why the petitioner should also not be granted similar relief as has been granted to the petitioners of the aforementioned writ applications.;