IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
MJC NO.3930 OF 2009
RAMANAND ROY, SON OF LATE KESHWAR ROY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
JETULI, POLICE STATION FATUHA, DISTRICT PATNA ...............PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. SRI ANJANI KUAMR SINGH, SECRETARY, Human Resources
Development Department, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, NEW
SECRETARIAT, PATNA
2. KUMAR ASHUTOSH, DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, Human
Resources Development Department, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA
3. SHRI SUNIL BARTHAWAL, COMMISSIONER, PATNA DIVISION, PATNA
4. SHRI DASRATH RAM, REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, PATNA DIVISION,
INTER COUNCIL BUILDING, BUDH MARG, PATNA
5. SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PATNA
6. SHRI SHASHI BHUSHAN, DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION,
PATNA
7. SHRI RAJENDRA PANDEY, HEAD MASTER, MIDDLE SCHOOL,
BAHUARA, PARSA, PATNA
8. SHRI EKBAL HUSSAIN, HEAD MASTER, MIDDLE SCHOOL, ISHOPUR,
PHULWARISHARIF, PATNA
9. SHRI RAM LAGAN PRASAD SINGH, HEAD MASTER, MIDDLE SCHOOL,
SAMPAT CHAK, PARSA, PATNA
10. CHANDRA SHEKHAR PRASAD SINGH, HEAD MASTER, MIDDLE
SCHOOL, BAKAR GANJ, KOHAMA, FATUHA, PATNA
11. SHRI SHASHI SEKHAR PRASAD SINGH, HEAD MASTER, MIDDLE
SCHOOL, ALABALPUR, FATUHA, PATNA
............................................................CONTEMNORS/OPPOSITE PARTIES
*********
5 03/11/2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the
Opposite Parties.
A show cause has been filed containing
Annexure-A dated 02.09.2009 which has purportedly
been passed in compliance of the order of this court.
It appears that the petitioner is not satisfied with
the order contained in Annexure-A as it indicates that if
the petitioner is dissatisfied, he can place his case before
the District Superintendent of Education, Patna along
with the relevant documents, who will consider his case
-2-
in accordance with the 1993 Rules for promotion.
It is obvious that the option given to the
petitioner is not a satisfactory option, however, some sort
of reasonings has been mentioned in Annexure-A,
wherein it has been stated that the petitioner was only
entitled for promotion in accordance with the vacancies
and his position in the gradation list. This is the main
aspect which has to be considered. The fact that other
juniors were granted promotion, according to the
authorities, cannot be a criteria for grant of any further
promotion. If the petitioner is dissatisfied with the order
contained in Annexure-A, he would have the liberty to
challenge it in any appropriate proceedings.
This contempt application is disposed of with the
aforesaid observations and directions.
Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )