IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1417 of 2007 1. YAMUNA RAM, Son of Late Shanichar Ram, resident of Flat No. 301, Ram Chandra Lochan Vatika, Mohanpur, Town & District- Patna. 2. Rajendra Prasad, Son of Late Ghuteshwar Harijan, resident of 204, Ram Chandra Lochan Vatika, Mohanpur, Punaichak, Town & District- Patna. 3. Arbind Prakash Ranjan, Son of Late Ram Pravesh Ram, resident of Flat No. 404, Ram Chandra Lochan Vatika, Mohanpur, Punachaik, Town & District- Patna. 4. Kishori Lal Baitha, Son of Late Yadu Baitha, resident of Niharika Apartment, Flat No. 401, Sheikhpura, Town & District- Patna :---- Petitioners. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Shashi Shekhar Sharma, The Commissioner cum Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. Sri Udhav Pandey, the Deputy Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. :---- Opposite Parties. ----------- 2. 04.11.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. 2. In compliance of my order dated 22.01.2007 passed in C.W.J.C.No. 970 of 2004, Annexure-1 the State-respondents have considered the case of the petitioners for promotion on the post of Executive Engineer with effect from the date they held charge of the Division but have rejected such prayer to promote them with effect from the date they held charge of the Division under order bearing Memo No. 231 dated 18.05.2007, Annexure-3. Counsel for the petitioners states that such order is contrary to the statements made in the counter affidavit on the basis of which order dated 22.1.2007, Annexure-1 was passed and the direction to consider made under the order dated 22.1.2007 should have been taken by the authorities as a direction to promote the petitioners with effect from the date petitioners were made Incharge of the Division. I regret not to accept such submission. The word consideration only require the authorities to consider and pass order which they have passed. The prayer of the petitioners for being promoted as incharge with effect from the date they held charge of the Division has been rejected petitioners would be well advised to challenge the order whereunder their such request has been rejected. 3. With the aforesaid observation, this contempt application is disposed of. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha, J.)