The judgment established the retrospective application of rule amendments and the need for departmental authorities to consider relaxation sought by employees for promotion eligibility.

Shiva Kirti Singh, J.

1. There are 12 petitioners in this writ application who were all clerks in the Commercial Taxes Department, Govt. of Bihar. Petitioners 1 to 5 are said to have retired from service during the pendency of the writ application. The claim of all the petitioners is for direction to the respondents to consider their cases and grant them junior selection grade by way of first time bound promotion with effect from due dates and also to consider their cases and grant them senior selection grade by way of second time bound promotion in terms of recommendation of the 4th pay revision committee accepted by the Govt. of Bihar vide resolution dated 30th December, 1981 (Annexure-2).

2. Had this case not been admitted and pending for such a long time I would have directed the petitioners to file separate writ application because of their different date of appointment and different dates from which they claim promotion. At times because of large number of petitioners it become very difficult to examine the individual cases of petitioners although they may be raising same or similar questions of law. In service matters generally law has to be applied with due regard to particular and individual facts of the petitioners. However, since the matter was admitted long time back hence, I do not consider it just and proper to non suit the petitioners for misjoinder of causes of action.

3. Petitioners have given in paragraph 8 of the writ petition the various dates on which petitioner nos. 1 to 5 and 7 to 11 were initially appointed as Lower Division Clerks. About petitioner nos. 6 and 12 it has been stated that they were initially appointed to class-IV posts and thereafter by way of promotion they were appointed to class-Ill posts on the dates given in paragraph-8 of the writ application. As per policy decision and resolution of the Government contained in Annexure-2 ordinarily first time bound promotion and 2nd time bound promotion are to be given to such Government employees who could not get regular promotion in their service career on completion of 10 years and 25 years of service respectively. Petitioners case is that they are covered by said policy decision and resolution and all of them become eligible for grant of junior selection grade by way of first time bound promotion between 1.4.1981 to 1.2.1985. About the petitioner no. 5 it has been submitted that he completed 25 years of service on 23rd December, 1984 and was eligible for 2nd time bound promotion also from that date.

4. The petitioners realise that the main hurdle in grant of selection grade to them lies in the fact that although they attempted but could not successfully clear all the papers for the accounts examination. Non passing of such departmental examination in accounts had an adverse effect as provided in Rule 157 (3) (J) of the Bihar Boards Miscellaneous Rules which debar the Lower Division Clerks from being promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerks. It is admitted that in the year 1980 there was a merger of LD and UD clerks and both were placed in a combined cadre under the nomenclature of Assistants. In such a situation, it was submitted that Rule 157 (3) (J) as it stood then became redundant.

5. Petitioners have annexed a notification dated 29.4.1985 as Annexure- 3 which shows that in exercise of power under proviso to Rule 309 of the Constitution of India the relevant part of Rule 157 (3)(J) was amended and as a result of such amendment a clerk who had not passed the final examination in accounts was debarred from promotion to the selection grade.

6. According to the petitioners the amendment in the rules vide notification dated 29.4.1985 can apply only prospectively and therefore, the petitioner cannot be denied promotion to junior selection grade by way of first time bound promotion since all of them had become eligible for such promotion prior to 29.4.1985.

7. It has further been submitted with regard to petitioners claim for 2nd tim