Patna High CourtCWJC/16045/2014disposed

Raj Nandan v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2018-07-23Mr. Justice Dr. Anil Kumar Upadhyay2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16045 of 2014 ====================================================== Raj Nandan son of Late Sheo Balak Singh, Resident of Mohalla- Mayur Vihar Colony, Ghughri Tand, Chan Chaura, District- Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Director, Secondary School Examination Board, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna

3. The Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna

4. The Joint Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Secretariat, Patna

5. The Principal Secretary, Education Department, New Secretariat, Patna

6. The District Programme Officer Establishment, Gaya

7. The District Magistrate, Gaya

8. The District Education Officer, Gaya ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

AC to SC-25 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER 23-07-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

Petitioner has filed this present writ application for a direction to the respondents to consider his case for grant of time bound promotion/ACP.

On behalf of the respondents a counter affidavit has been filed wherein they have taken a plea that time bound promotion is not available after 31.12.1985. The petitioner was appointed as Headmaster in the year 1980 and as such he has not completed 10 years of service before 31.12.1985.

Patna High Court CWJC No.16045 of 2014(3) dt.23-07-2018 2/2 In view of the above, the petitioner is not entitled to time bound promotion. However, in terms of subsequent decision of the Government for grant of ACP under ACP rules and MACP, the respondents are required to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of ACP/MACP in accordance with rules for grant of ACP and take final decision with regard to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

The respondents are also required to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of consequential benefit after such decision for grant of ACP under the ACP Rules within a further period of one month.

With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of.

(Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) Ravi/- U