@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Narayan Roy, J.@mdashHeard counsel for the parties.
2. This writ application is directed against order dated 4.6.1999 passed by Respondent No. 4, as contained in Annexure 1, vide memo No. 722, whereby and whereunder the promotion granted to the Petitioner has been cancelled and the Petitioner has been reverted back to his substantive post of peon in Sundari Ramautar High School, Bariayarpur in the district of Sitamarhi.
3. According to the case of the Petitioner, the Petitioner was appointed on the post of peon in Sundari Ramautar High School, Bariyarpuron 17.3.1974. The Petitioner having served in the school for some time passed the typing test and when a post of clerk-cum-typist in the school fell vacant, the Petitioner was considered for the post aforesaid by way of promotion, as permissible to Class IV employees. The Petitioner was found eligible for the post and, accordingly, he was promoted to the post of clerk-cum-typist with effect from 22.7.1983 vide order, as contained in Annexure 2 by the District Education Officer, Sitamarhi. The first time bound promotion, thereafter, was granted to the Petitioner with effect from 25.7.1993 and for the first time in the year 1997, a show-cause notice was issued to him by the District Education Officer, Sitamarhi, as contained in Annexure 4 asking him to explain as to why the promotion granted to him illegally on the post of clerk-cum-typist be not cancelled. The Petitioner thereafter submitted his show-cause stating all the relevant facts and the authorities thereafter issued the order impugned cancelling his promotion to the post of clerk-cum-typist.
4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner was promoted to the post of clerk-cum-typist after following the procedures said down in law and since the Petitioner was eligible he was promoted as clerk-cum-typist from Class IV employee, which was permissible in law. It is further submitted that since only one post had fallen vacant and the law permitted the authority to promote Class IV employees to the post of Class III to the extent of 20% of the vacancies, no illegality, whatsoever, was committed in promoting the Petitioner to the post of clerk-cum-typist. It is also submitted that the District Education Officer was the competent authority to promote the Petitioner on Class III post.
5. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has also tried to impress upon the Court that in the district of Sitamarhi several persons were promoted to the posts of Class III like the Petitioner by the District Education Officer, but their promotion has not been cancelled, whereas the promotion of the Petitioner to the post of Class III as clerk-cum-typist alone has been cancelled by the order impugned.
6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent No. 4, the District Education Officer, Sitamarhi. In whole of the counter affidavit, it is not stated as to who would be the authority to promote the Class IV employees to the post of Class III.
7. The assertion made in the writ application that the District Education Officer was the competent authority to promote the Petitioner on Class III post is almost admitted.
8. In the counter affidavit, however, it is stated that pursuant to the letter issued by the Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna, as contained in memo No. 605 dated 30.4.1997 the promotion granted to the Petitioner has been cancelled. No reason, whatsoever, is being disclosed in the counter affidavit as to what weighed before the Director, Secondary Education, Bihar in cancelling the promotion of the Petitioner alone.
9. In paragraph 26 of the writ application, it is categorically stated that many juniors to the Petitioner were promoted to the post of clerk since 1986 onwards, whereas the promotion of the Petitioner alone has been cancelled and his juniors have been allowed to work on the promotional posts. The statement made in paragraph 26 of the writ application has not been controverted in the counter affidavit nor any whisper has been made about the same.
10. It appears from the materials on record and from the pleadings of the parties that the Petitioner was considered for promotion to the post of clerk-cum-typist by the competent authority and since he was found eligible for the post as he had passed the typing examination, he was promoted to the post of clerk-cum-typist on 22.7.1983. If further appears that after promotion of the Petitioner to the post of clerk-cum-typist, first time bound promotion was granted to the Petitioner with effect from 25.7.1993 and thereafter he continued on the post aforesaid uninterruptedly.
11. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has drawn my attention towards the interim order passed by this Court on 5.7.1999 showing that the order impugned, as contained in Annexure 1, has been stayed by this Court and the Petitioner by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court dated 5.7.1999 is still working as clerk-cum-typist in the aforesaid school and the order of revision has not been given effect to.
12. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, as referred to above, the order impugned, as contained in Annexure 1, is held to be wholly arbitrary, unreasonable and without jurisdiction.
13. In the result, this application is allowed and the order impugned, as contained in Annexure 1, so far the Petitioner is concerned, is set aside.
14. No order as to costs.
