IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1762 of 2010 Dr. Shyam Bihari Mishra S/o Late Durga Prasad Mishra (Retired Lecturer, Department of Kaya Chikihsa, Government Ayurvedic College, Patna), at Present R/o Mohalla- Dhobighat (Malviya Nagar), Gali No 8, Chitravana at P.S.-Buxar, Distt.- Buxar) ...........Appellant/Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Commissioner-cum-Secretary Health Medical Education and Family Welfare Department, New Secretariat, Vikas Bhawan, Patna-800001. 2. The Director, Indigenous Medicines Health Department, New Secretariat, Vikas Bhawan, Patna-800001. ..............Respondents ----------- 03 27.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner and learned counsel for the State. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the order of learned Single Judge passed in M.J.C. No. 1211 of 2007 dated 21.07.2010. The appellant/petitioner filed earlier C.W.J.C. No. 1850 of 2000, which was disposed off vide order dated 25.07.2005, which reads as under:- “In the fact and circumstances, this court would now require the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Reader and consequently to the post of Professor within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The petitioner is stated to have superannuated on 31.08.2000. It goes without saying that 2 the petitioner would automatically be entitled to all consequential benefits in performance of such consideration of his case by the respondents. The writ application accordingly stands disposed off with the observation indicated above.” In compliance of the aforesaid order, the Government considered the representation of the appellant/petitioner and rejected on 16.06.2010. During the pendency of the disposal of the representation, appellant/petitioner filed M.J.C. No. 1211 of 2007, alleging that the order dated 25.07.2005 has not been complied with and, therefore, relief was sought under Article 215 of the Constitution of India. On that, a show cause notice was issued, thereafter the representation was decided as noted above on 16.06.2010 and was filed in response to the show cause notice. The M.J.C. No. 1211 of 2007 has been disposed off in the following terms:- “A show cause has been filed on behalf of the opposite party. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no copy has been served upon him. The direction of the writ Court was to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion and if found 3 fit grant him consequential benefits. Annexure-A to the counter affidavit is an order considering his case and rejecting the claim for promotion. This Court has gone through the order. It is not possible for this Court in the contempt jurisdiction to reassess the findings arrived at in this fresh order which shall necessarily have to be the subject matter of a fresh writ petition, if so advised. No useful purpose would be served by adjourning the matter on the plea of non service of copy of the show cause. The matter stands disposed.” The learned Single Judge has rightly disposed off the application as the representation of the petitioner was disposed off and it was for the petitioner to have challenged the order of rejection of representation of the petitioner in a fresh writ petition. Thus, we do not find any merit in this L.P.A., the L.P.A is dismissed. Safik (Prakash Chandra Verma, J.) (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.)