Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner in both the writ petitions and the State.
(2.) ESSENTIALLY the issue involved in both the writ petitions is common i.e. whether the petitioners are entitled to claim promotion to Class III post from Class IV post to which they were substantially appointed at different point of time though the procedure laid down for such promotion under Circular dated 11.2.1985 issued by the Personnel Department, Government of Bihar has not been followed. In case of petitioner Raghunandan Koerie, he has been reverted to the post of peon by the impugned reasoned order dated 18.2.2013 from the post of Head Clerk, passed by the District Education Officer, Ranchi, Jharkhand. In the case of petitioner Yogendra Ram, his claim for promotion to Class III post has been rejected by the Director, Secondary Education, Human Resource Development Department, Government of Jharkhand by impugned order dated 10.1.2013. Certain facts of the individual petitioners are being noticed hereunder. For the sake of convenience, the petitioner in WPS No. 2136/2013 shall be referred to as the first writ petitioner and petitioner in WPS No. 2808/2013 shall be referred to as the second writ petitioner hereinafter.
(3.) THE case of first writ petitioner has a chequred history in the sense that initially he was also appointed as a Peon on 30th December, 1970 in a Non -Government School, Giridih which was taken over by the Government on 2nd October, 1980. The District Education Officer, Ranchi by an office order dated 31st January, 1991 had promoted him on the sanctioned vacant post of correspondence clerk in Grade -III for 6 months in Project High School, Ginjo, Thakurgaon and the same was extended from time to time vide orders enclosed as Annexure -5 Series. Once when his salary was not being paid for Class -III post, he approached this Court in W.P.(S) No. 4895 of 2003 for release of the same in which the concerned authority was directed to take a final decision in the matter. Such decision was taken on 6th December, 2003 by the respondents holding that he is entitled to salary for Class -III post from March, 2002 till date of payment, but at the same time it also held that he should be reverted to the Post of Peon as his promotion was not proper in the eye of law. The challenge to the said order in W.P.(S) No. 36 of 2004 was negated and the writ petition was dismissed vide judgment dated 11th July, 2006, Annexure -9, however, granting him liberty to make a representation before the respondents for consideration of his claim for such promotion on its own merit. The petitioner had occasion to approach the writ court again in W.P.(S) No. 7660 of 2006, as the respondents were not taking any decision in respect of the promotion claimed by him. However, the said writ petition was permitted to be withdrawn vide judgment dated 17th January, 2008, Annexure - 12/A on the statement made by learned counsel for the petitioners themselves that a list is being prepared by the department for promotion in which his name also appears. Thereafter, the petitioner again approached the Court in W.P.(S) No. 4218 of 2009, which was disposed of simpliciter without getting into the merits of the contention by directing the respondents to take a decision on his representation also appreciating the circular dated 11th February, 1985. The petitioner perhaps had raised the contention that other juniors to him had been given promotion to Class -III post while he was not granted the said promotion and that he was considerably senior in the seniority list as is disclosed through Annexure -10 enclosed to the present writ petition, which was prepared for the district of Ranchi. The Director, Secondary Education, by a detailed reasoned order, which is impugned herein, however, has rejected the petitioner's claim after examining it in the context of the circular dated 11th February, 1985 by holding that the procedure required for promotion after holding a limited competitive examination amongst eligible Class -IV employees had not been followed. He refused the claim of the petitioner on the ground that juniors have been given promotion by stating that if the promotion of the juniors had not been done as per the procedure laid down, he can not sustain a claim on that account. The Director, Secondary Education also issued a direction upon the District Superintendent of Education in different districts of the State to examine instances of promotion given to the post of Class -III employees without following the procedure laid down under the circular dated 11th February, 1985. Thus, petitioner being aggrieved, is before this Court.;