IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8420 of 2005 RAM KISHORE PRASAD SINGH, son of Sri Ramanuj Prasad Singh, resident of village – Haripur Kadrabad, P S – Bachchwara, District – Begusarai, at present posted as Junior Accounts Clerk, Rural Engineering Organization (REO), Rural Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Works Division, Rosera, P S – Rosera, District - Samastipur Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The Secretary, Rural Engineering Organization, (R.E.O.), Rural Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, 5th Floor, Visheshwaraiya Bhawan, Patna. 3. The Engineer-in-Chief, R.E.O. Rural Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, the 5th Floor, Visheshwaraiya Bhawan, Patna. 4. The Chief Engineer, Rural Engineering Organization (R.E.O.), IInd Zone, Rural Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, the 5th Floor, Visheshwaraiya Bhawan, Patna. 5. The Superintending Engineer, Rural Engineering Organization (R.E.O.), Rural Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Work Circle, Darbhanga. 6. The Executive Engineer, R.E.O., Rural Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Works Division, Begusarai. 7. The Executive Engineer, R.E.O., Rural Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Works Division, Rosera, Samastipur. ----------- 05. 27.9.2010 Annexure-6 dated 6.5.2003 came to be passed not only against the petitioner but against many others similarly situated. By virtue of this order the so-called benefit of first time-bound promotion given to them between 1.9.83 to 31.12.95 was sought to be taken away because they had not passed the accounts examination which was mandatory. Para – 2 of the said order itself states that this decision has been taken in light of the objection raised by the Accountant General based on a Full Bench’s decision which has been rendered by this Court in its order dated 19.9.2000. The background therefore to such a decision was not a unilateral decision taken by the respondents without any rationale or basis. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the benefit of promotion was given by the respondents on their own and the same cannot be undone now to the detriment of the petitioner. In addition to that he also submits that petitioner filled up form for clearing the departmental examination in 2000. Examination was held in 2002 and result declared in 2005. In other words, there was long delay by the State itself in matter of allowing the petitioner to clear the departmental examination when he sat for it. The benefit therefore must accrue at least from the date the petitioner filled application for sitting in that examination. Neither of the two contentions is worth consideration in view of the fact that the basis for passing the impugned order contained in Annexure-6 was a judicial order of this Court and the objection raised therein by the Accountant General. Considering any point in favour of the petitioner would amount to undoing the decision of the Full Bench which this Court is not willing to do. The benefit of time- bound promotion if at all is given, it can accrue to the petitioner only from the date of passing of the departmental examination, which also this Court has doubts since time-bound promotion policy stood withdrawn from 1.1.96. The writ application has no merit. It is dismissed. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)