Petitioner claims to be selected/appointed as Deputy Collector vide Government Order dated 27th April, 1980 on his selection by Bihar Public Service Commission in the 27th Bihar Administrative Service Examination. Pursuant to his appointment he joined the post on 2nd May, 1980. It is stated that petitioner passed all the examinations of Hindi noting and drafting and other required papers and was confirmed on 21st January, 2000 by the State of Bihar.

2. On reorganization of the State of.

Bihar and creation of State of Jharkhand, petitioner was allocated to the State of Jharkhand, where another letter of confirmation was issued on 14th August, 2003.

His seniority was also fixed at SI. No. 278 of the seniority list of the cadre.

3. Apart from regular substantive pro-.

motion to the higher post against available substantive vacancy, petitioner was to be considered for promotion under the Time Bound Scheme of the Government. He was entitled to be placed in the scale of Rs. 10000-15200 i.e. Junior Selection Grade after completion of 10 years of service and to be further promoted in the scale of Rs. 12000-16500 i.e. Senior Selection Grade or the scale of Assured Career Progression (in short ACP) Scheme on completion of 24 years of service.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that even after completion of more than 25 years of service, as Deputy Collector, and having qualified all the departmental examinations, he has not been promoted against regular post of Sub-Divisional Officer in the scale of Rs. 10000-15200 and has also not been considered for first and second Time Bond Promotions, which are available after completion of 10 years and 24 years of service, respectively. It is further case of the petitioner that a large number of Deputy Collectors have been promoted in the higher scale of Rs. 1000015200 against the post of Sub-Divisional Officer on 6th May, 2005. Another batch of Deputy Collectors was promoted on 19th July, 2005 and majority of the promotees are junior to him. Petitioner has, accordingly, approached this Court seeking relief against his non-promotion on substantive post as well as under the Time Bound Scheme.

5. Petitioner has further disclosed that in the year 2001 on the basis of allegation of accepting bribe, a Vigilance Case No. 11 of 2001 (Special Case No. 16 of 2001) was registered against him. He was arrested in the said case and latter released on bail. A charge-sheet has been presented in the Court and charge has been framed against him. Against framing of charge, petitioner moved the High Court by filing revision application, being Cr. Revision No. 894 of 2003, and the proceedings before the Trial Court have been stayed by order dated 23rd December, 2003. It is, however, stated that no disciplinary proceedings are pending against him. He has also referred to letter issued by the Chief Secretary to all the Deputy Commissioners on 24th September, 1998 stating therein that an employee cannot be denied promotion, if disciplinary/criminal proceedings are not terminated or concluded within two years.

Petitioner, accordingly, seeks a direction for his promotion to the next higher post or at least under the Time Bound Scheme.

6. In I. A. No. 6 of 2006, petitioner has made further supplemental submissions.

He has referred to the cases of Surendra Nath Mandilwar, Naresh Kumar, Sri Raj Kumar, Sri Rajesh Kumar, Sri Bimal etc., against whom vigilance cases have been filed and charge-sheets are pending in Court, but they have been granted promotion, ignoring pendency of criminal/disciplinary proceedings against them. On the basis of the above facts, petitioner has also claimed hostile and discriminatory treatment against him in the matter of promotion and thus violation of fundamental right of equality.

7. State of Jharkhand through Under Secretary, Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi has filed counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents admitting therein that petitioner has