1. The present petition has been preferred mainly against the order dated 03.02.2010 (Annexure10 to the memo of petition) as well as the order dated 26.12.2007 (Annexure10/1 to the memo of petition) whereby it has been decided by the respondents that the petitioners' appointment as Overseer in the year 197879 was a promotion and, therefore, the time bound promotion given to the petitioners was not due at the relevant time and, therefore, the same has been ordered to be withdrawn by annexure10 to the memo of petition.

2. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that initially the petitioners were appointed as Kit Palak in the year 1978. Thereafter, as stated in paragraph 5 of the memo of petition, a public advertisement was issued in a daily local dated th November, 1976 for the appointment of the Overseer in the Department of Industries of the then State of Bihar. Petitioners applied for the post through Employment Exchange. After due process of law, the petitioners were selected. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that total 160 candidates were selected for the post of Overseer. A panel was prepared. Petitioners' name were included in the selected list. Out of the total 160 candidates, 29 candidates were initially appointed and thereafter in another lot, 13 candidates were appointed as Overseer. Though this was a fresh appointment upon altogether a different post, in appointment letters of the petitioners, it has been referred as 'Promotion', but in fact, it was not a promotion at all. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that thereafter the petitioners were given for the first time 1st time bound promotion in the year 1988 which has been withdrawn by the respondents vide impugned order dated 03.02.2010 and by order at Annexure10/1 dated 26.12.2007, the respondents have decided that initial appointment of the petitioners was as Overseer was not a fresh appointment but it was a promotion. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that both these orders are patently dehors the law and passed without any notice or without any opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. Some of the petitioners have retired by now and after a lapse of more than two decades now the order of recovery has been passed which is against the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgment. Counsel for the petitioners relied upon a decision rendered in (2009) 3 S.C.C. 745 and submitted that in view of the decision, if there is no misrepresentation or fraud played upon by the petitioners, at the time of getting any promotion or at the time of any higher pay scale, the same cannot be ordered to be recovered even though it was given by mistake and, therefore, orders at Annexure10 and at Annexure 10/1 deserve to be quashed and set aside.

3. Counsel for the State submitted that looking to the appointment orders of the petitioners as Overseer, it was a promotion given to the petitioners and once a promotion is given to the petitioners, they are not entitled to get time bound promotion within a shorter period and therefore, their promotion itself was illegal and therefore the additional time bound promotion was ordered to be cancelled and order of recovery has also been passed and, therefore, no illegality has been committed by the respondents. Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

4. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I hereby quash and set aside the orders impugned passed by the respondents at Annexure10 and Annexure10/1 mainly for the following facts and reasons:

(i) The present petitioners were initially appointed as “Kit Palak” in the year 1978, by an order at Annexure1 to the memo of petition.

(ii) It has been stated in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the memo of petition as under: “5. That it is stated that an advertisement was published in daily newspaper on 13th November, 1976 for appointment on vacant posts of Oversee