- (1.) THE grievance of the petitioner in the instant case is that although he ranks senior to the respondents no. 6 and 7, as claimed by him on the basis of the order dated 10th July, 1997 (being the seniority list) as contained in annexure -1 appended to the writ application and although he was entitled to promotion he has been superseded by them. Consequently, the petitioner makes a prayer for granting him promotion in the higher post of Plant Protection Supervisor together with all consequential benefits and also for modifying the office order no. 8717 dated 27.11.1996 as contained in annexure -2 appended to the writ application whereby and whereunder respondents no. 6 and 7 superseded him.
(2.) ALTHOUGH both States i.e. the State of Bihar and the State of Jharkhand were directed to file counter affidavit on 8.10.2001, it is only the State of Jharkhand which has come forward with the counter affidavit, whereas the State of Bihar has chosen not to do so. In the counter affidavit of the respondent no. 2 (i.e. the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Agriculture Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi) it has, inter alia, been stated at paragraphs6 and 8 that firstly; matter relating to the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Plant Protection Supervisor is to be given with effect from 27.11.1996 (i.e. prior to coming into force of the Bihar Re -organization Act, 2000) and. Therefore, it is only the respondent no. 3 (i.e. the Secretary -cum Director, Agriculture Department. Government of Bihar. Patna) who is the proper authority for giving such promotion to the petitioner. Consequently, they have stated at paragraph -8 of the counter affidavit that the matter for promotion of Field Operator like petitioner to the post of Plant Protection Supervisor is pending before the respondent no. 3 in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. no. 8175 of 2000 (Binod Kumar and Others vs. The State of Bihar). Since this matter relates to a demand for promotion which is the function of the Government, this Court at the threshold is not inclined to interfere with this matter especially more so when the respondents no. 6 and 7 are not present before this Court and, therefore, no order can be passed behind their back.
(3.) MR . Pankaj Kumar J.C. to Mr. A. Allam, who generally appears on behalf of the State of Bihar, prays for an additional six weeks' time to seek instructions and file counter affidavit but in view of the nature of the order that this Court proposes to pass, no further time is necessary to be given to them.;