Abdullah Ansari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15792 of 2015 ======================================================

1. Abdullah Ansari son of Maqsood Alam Ansari, resident of village + P.O.- Parwan, P.S.- Barharia, District- Siwan .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

2. The Principal Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

3. The Principal Secretary, Department of General Administration, Government of Bihar, Patna

4. The Principal Secretary, Department of Cabinet Coordination, Govt. of Bihar .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bidhanesh Misra, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Lalit Kishore- PAAg ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL ORDER 02-12-2015 This writ application is disposed of with a direction upon the respondent State authorities to grant promotion to the petitioner in terms of the recommendation of the DPC. The impediment which stood in the way of the petitioner due to pendency of a writ application, which led to issuance of a general order issued by the General Administration Department, will not come in the way of the claim of this petitioner in view of the decision rendered by a Division Bench as well as upholding the decision of the learned Single Judge.

Merely because the State wants to assail the said decision before the Hon'ble Apex Court after seeking opinion of

Patna High Court CWJC No.15792 of 2015 (2) dt.02-12-2015 the Attorney General, that cannot come in the way of this petitioner right for promotion.

It is, however, made clear that a rider may be added to the orders of promotion that it will be subject to the outcome of the decision which may be rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that grant of promotion in this circumstance will not be treated as a substantive right as such. Respondents are directed to take an early decision, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this order.

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) P.K./- U