Case Background
The petitioners were appointed as Junior Engineers around 1999 through the Bihar Public Service Commission, on requisition from the Road Construction Department. Some petitioners had even joined earlier than that.
On 22.07.1998, the Government of Bihar, Road Construction Department, issued a resolution (Memo No. 5008 (s)) increasing the promotion quota from Junior Engineer to Assistant Engineer for AMIE or equivalent degree holders from 3% to 10%. This resolution clearly stated that:
(a) The 10% quota would cover Junior Engineers who already possessed AMIE or equivalent before joining, and those who acquired it during service; and
(b) They would be eligible only after completing five years’ service as Junior Engineers, subject to availability of vacancies calculated year-wise.
Clause 4 (ङ) of the 1998 resolution was later amended through Memo No. 2475 (s) dated 21.02.2008. The amendment removed any discrimination between those who had acquired AMIE before service and those who obtained it during service. All Junior Engineers with AMIE or equivalent and five years’ service became equally eligible for promotion under the 10% quota.
The petitioners obtained AMIE or equivalent between 2005 and 2012. By 2011–2012, many had completed both the degree and the required five years’ service. According to them, they thus became eligible for promotion as Assistant Engineers under the 10% quota, subject to vacancies.
In 2012–2013, the cadre of Junior Engineers and Assistant Engineers in the Road Construction Department was bifurcated and some posts were shifted to the Rural Works Department. The petitioners’ cadre was shifted to the Rural Works Department in 2012–2013. At that time, there were 909 sanctioned posts of Assistant Engineer in Rural Works Department. Ten per cent of these were reserved for AMIE quota promotions. On information obtained by the petitioners, 13 AMIE quota vacancies existed in 2012 and 32 in 2013.
However, despite the 1998 and 2008 resolutions requiring the department to calculate and fill 10% quota vacancies each year, the Rural Works Department did not work out or fill these promotional vacancies in time.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The core grievance of the petitioners was that their promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer under the 10% AMIE quota, granted by Memo No. 4739 dated 14.05.2018, was made effective only from the date of that notification. They argued that they were legally entitled to be considered from the date when they became eligible (AMIE plus five years’ service) and vacancies existed in 2012–2013.
They relied heavily on an earlier Bench judgment of the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 16049 of 2016 (Arwind Kumar and Others vs The State of Bihar and Others), decided on 15.03.2017. In that case, Junior Engineers under the Road Construction Department had faced a similar delay in promotion under the same 10% AMIE quota.
The Bench in CWJC No. 16049 of 2016 had directed that the effective date of promotion be aligned with the date each Junior Engineer acquired eligibility (subject to vacancies earmarked for that year). This direction was implemented by the Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, via Memo No. 11270 (s) dated 07.12.2017, shifting back the date of promotion to 31.12.2008 for those petitioners.
The petitioners in the present case argued that:
– The same resolutions (22.07.1998 and 21.02.2008) governed their promotion, even after their cadre moved to Rural Works Department.
– The legal issue in their case was identical to that in CWJC No. 16049 of 2016.
– Rural Works Department itself was a party in CWJC No. 16049 of 2016 and could not now avoid extending the same benefit.
They submitted that the State’s refusal to shift back their promotion date, while having done so for similarly placed engineers in the Road Construction Department, violated Article 14 and the doctrine of legitimate expectation. They also informed the Court that in CWJC No. 6773 of 2010, involving a similarly situated Junior Engineer of Rural Works Department, a co-ordinate Bench had already directed consideration of backdated promotion with reference to eligibility dates and vacancy occurrence.
On the other hand, the State argued that:
– The order in CWJC No. 16049 of 2016 was confined to the Road Construction Department and could not automatically apply to the Rural Works Department.
– Merely acquiring AMIE and completing five years of service does not itself justify retrospective promotion. Vacancies must actually exist.
– According to the State, no AMIE quota vacancies existed in Rural Works Department until 2017. The petitioners were, in fact, promoted in 2018, and this date should stand.
– There is no rule allowing retrospective promotion and various judgments of the Patna High Court and the Supreme Court, including Chandra Mani Baitha vs State of Bihar (CWJC No. 1945 of 2008, affirmed in LPA No. 688 of 2018), Union of India vs Manpreet Singh Poonam (Civil Appeal Nos. 517–518 of 2017; (2022) 6 SCC 105), State of Uttaranchal vs Dinesh Kumar Sharma (2007) 1 SCC 683, and Bihar State Electricity Board vs Dharamdeo Das (2024 (3) SC PLJR 400; 2024 SCC Online SC 1768), held that:
• Seniority flows from the actual date of promotion, not the date when vacancy arose, and
• Promotions should not be backdated to harm others in the cadre.
The intervenor-respondents, who were directly recruited Assistant Engineers and later promoted as Executive Engineers, opposed the writ petition on additional grounds:
– During the pendency of this case, the Engineer-in-Chief, Rural Works Department, had already rejected the petitioners’ representation for shifting back promotion dates by order dated 19.06.2023, which was not specifically challenged.
– A final merit/seniority list for Assistant Engineers had been notified, and several intervenors were promoted to Executive Engineer from 01.01.2024. Changing the petitioners’ promotion dates now, they argued, would disturb the existing seniority and promotional structure.
Justice Harish Kumar carefully distinguished between two concepts:
1. The date from which seniority in a cadre takes effect; and
2. The obligation of the employer to consider eligible employees for promotion in a timely manner when vacancies arise.
The Court accepted that:
– The settled legal position is that seniority is generally counted from the date of entry into a particular cadre and that retrospective promotion disturbing others is impermissible.
However, the Judge held that these principles do not give the State a free hand to delay consideration of promotion endlessly. Citing CWJC No. 16049 of 2016 and Supreme Court decisions, the Court emphasised:
– The right to be considered for promotion is part of the constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 16.
– Consideration for promotion must be fair and timely. An employer cannot defer it at its sweet will when vacancies arise and employees are eligible.
– A welfare State must act as a “model employer”, and its authorities are accountable for delay or arbitrary refusal in processing promotions.
The Court noted that the 1998 and 2008 resolutions:
– Explicitly created a 10% quota for AMIE/equivalent qualified Junior Engineers with five years’ service.
– Mandated that vacancies for this quota must be calculated every calendar year.
These resolutions still governed the field. The Rural Works Department could not ignore them or treat all AMIE-qualified Junior Engineers as a single block without regard to who became eligible when and when vacancies existed. That, as held earlier in CWJC No. 16049 of 2016, would amount to treating unequals as equals.
Justice Harish Kumar invoked constitutional principles of non-arbitrariness and legitimate expectation, relying on landmark Supreme Court cases such as:
– E.P. Royappa vs State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 1974 SC 555),
– Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 597),
– Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi vs State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1991 SC 537),
– Haji T.M. Hassan Rawther vs Kerala Financial Corporation (AIR 1988 SC 157),
– State of Andhra Pradesh vs Nalla Raja Reddy (AIR 1967 SC 1458),
– State of Jharkhand vs Brahmputra Metallics Ltd. ((2023) 10 SCC 634), and
– Shivnandan C.T. vs High Court of Kerala ((2024) 3 SCC 799).
These judgments reiterate that:
– State action must be fair, non-arbitrary and based on relevant principles.
– Public authorities must honour established policies, practices and promises, unless there is a good reason not to do so.
– Legitimate expectation arises when employees join service relying on existing promotional rules and resolutions.
The Court also pointed to the Bihar State Litigation Policy, 2011, especially Clause 4(c)(i), which mandates that once an issue is settled by a court and implemented for some employees, the same benefit should be extended to all similarly situated employees without forcing each one to litigate separately.
Applying these principles, the Court found:
– The petitioners’ situation is identical to that of the petitioners in CWJC No. 16049 of 2016.
– The plea that the earlier order was confined to the Road Construction Department and did not apply to the Rural Works Department is “wholly unsustainable” in law and fact and was expressly rejected.
Importantly, the Court clarified that the issue before it was limited: it was not deciding inter se seniority between petitioners and others or setting anyone’s seniority retrospectively. It was only directing timely and fair consideration of petitioners’ promotion claims under the 10% AMIE quota from the date they became eligible and vacancies existed, as per the governing resolutions.
In conclusion, the Court held that the petitioners are entitled to the same relief as in CWJC No. 16049 of 2016. It issued a mandamus directing respondent nos. 2 and 3 (Secretary and Additional Secretary, Rural Works Department) to:
– Consider the claim of each petitioner for promotion as Assistant Engineer under the 10% AMIE quota;
– With effect from the date on which each petitioner was found fit for promotion, in terms of the resolution dated 22.07.1998 and its amendment in Memo No. 2475 dated 21.02.2008;
– Subject to availability of vacancies in the relevant years; and
– Complete this exercise within four months from the date of receipt/production of the Court’s order.
The writ petition was allowed, and all pending applications were disposed of.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is significant for Junior Engineers in Bihar, especially those who have upgraded their qualifications to AMIE or equivalent while in service.
It makes clear that:
– Departments cannot ignore or delay applying notified promotion policies and quota resolutions.
– Once the Patna High Court has settled an issue and the Government has implemented it in one department, other departments under the same State cannot deny identical treatment to similarly placed employees.
– Employees have a right to timely consideration for promotion when they become eligible and when vacancies exist, even if seniority is ultimately counted from actual promotion date.
For government employees in Bihar, this ruling reinforces the protection of legitimate expectation and the duty of the State to act as a fair and model employer. It also shows that the Bihar State Litigation Policy, 2011, is not a mere formality, but can be used to insist on equal treatment without repeated litigation.
Legal Issues and Answers
-
Issue: Are Junior Engineers of the Rural Works Department with AMIE or equivalent qualification and five years’ service entitled to have their promotion as Assistant Engineers under the 10% quota considered from the date they became eligible and vacancies arose, rather than only from the 2018 notification date?
Answer: Yes. The Court held that, applying the 1998 and 2008 resolutions and the earlier Bench decision in CWJC No. 16049 of 2016, the petitioners must be considered for promotion from the date each became eligible, subject to year-wise vacancy, and directed the authorities to do so within four months.
Cases Cited by the Court
- CWJC No. 16049 of 2016, Arwind Kumar and Others vs The State of Bihar and Others (Patna High Court).
- CWJC No. 4547 of 2018 (Patna High Court) – referred in context of related challenge.
- CWJC No. 6773 of 2010 (Patna High Court) – involving a similarly situated Rural Works Department engineer.
- CWJC No. 1945 of 2008, Chandra Mani Baitha vs The State of Bihar (Patna High Court), affirmed in LPA No. 688 of 2018.
- Union of India vs Manpreet Singh Poonam, Civil Appeal Nos. 517–518 of 2017; (2022) 6 SCC 105.
- State of Uttaranchal vs Dinesh Kumar Sharma, (2007) 1 SCC 683.
- Bihar State Electricity Board vs Dharamdeo Das, 2024 (3) SC PLJR 400; 2024 SCC Online SC 1768.
- E.P. Royappa vs State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 555.
- Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597.
- Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi vs State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1991 SC 537.
- Haji T.M. Hassan Rawther vs Kerala Financial Corporation, AIR 1988 SC 157.
- State of Andhra Pradesh vs Nalla Raja Reddy, AIR 1967 SC 1458.
- C.O. Arumugam and Others vs The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, (1991) Supp (2) SCC 199.
- State of Jharkhand vs Brahmputra Metallics Ltd., (2023) 10 SCC 634.
- Shivnandan C.T. vs High Court of Kerala, (2024) 3 SCC 799.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2971 of 2020
Case Title: Sameer Kumar Singh & Others vs The State of Bihar & Others
Citation: 2025 (2) PLJR 434
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harish Kumar
Date of Judgment: 18-03-2025
Advocates:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Y.V. Giri, Senior Advocate; Mr. Rakesh Mohan Singh, Advocate; Mr. Rajni Kant Singh, Advocate.
For the State: Mr. Prem Ranjan Raj, Advocate.
For the Intervenor-Respondents: Mr. Lalit Kishore, Senior Advocate; Mr. Prabhu Nath Pathak, Advocate.
Nature of the Case: Writ petition (civil) under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking mandamus regarding date of promotion under 10% AMIE quota to the post of Assistant Engineer.
Link to Judgment (Official): Click here to view the full judgment on Patna High Court website
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
