High Court Patna High Court - Orders

Chandradip Manjhi vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 7 September, 2010

Patna High Court – Orders
Chandradip Manjhi vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 7 September, 2010
                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                  CWJC No.494 of 2010
         1. CHANDRADIP MANJHI S/O LATE GIRBAR MANJHI R/O VILL-
            MAKSUDPUR, P.S. KHAIRA, DISTT. SARAN, AT PRESENT
            POSTED AND WORKING AS AN ASSISTANT SUB INSPECTOR
            (EXCISE), VAISHALI, DISTT. VAISHALI
                                 Versus
         1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
         2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PERSONNEL AND
            ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
         3. THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY DEPTT. OF EXCISE,
            GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
         4. THE COMMISSIONER EXCISE DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR,
            PATNA
         5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DEPTT. OF EXCISE, BIHAR,
            PATNA
         6. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE DEPTT. OF
            EXCISE, BIHAR, PATNA
         7. THE SECRETARY OF COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE EXCISE
            DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
         8. THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER TIRHUT DIVISION AT
            MUZAFFARPUR
         9. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE VAISHALI
         10. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE VAISHALI
                                         -----------

3. 7.9.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner

and the State.

When the juniors of the petitioner were

promoted as Sub-Inspector (Excise) on 30.6.1994, he

came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 9294 of 2003.

This Court permitted him to represent. Officiating

promotion was then granted on 29.10.2003 with

effect from 30.6.1994, for the reason that he had not

cleared the departmental examination. He was not

considered for regular promotion when he crossed

the age bar of 50 years for promotion prescribed

under the Rules. On 6.7.2009 he represented for
2

exemption for promotion from passing the

departmental examination on ground of having

crossed 50 years age which has been rejected on

2.9.2009.

By consent of the parties, this application

is disposed off in similar terms as reported in

2006(2) PLJR 199, affirmed in L.P.A. and by the

Supreme Court.

However, in the peculiar facts of the

present case, it is clarified that the petitioner shall

become eligible to be considered for promotion after

exemption from passing the departmental

examination only from the date that he crosses the

age of 50 years.

The writ application stands disposed.

P. Kumar                                       ( Navin Sinha, J.)