IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1570 of 1999 Dr. Manipal Chaudhary, son of Sri Kishori Ram, Incharge, E.S.I. Dispensary at Phulwarisharif, P.O. + P.S. Phulwari Sharif, District Patna. ... Appellants. Versus 1. The State of Bihar, through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Secretary, Department of Labour Employment and Training, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Health Services, Employees State Insurance Scheme, Bihar, at P.S. & District Patna. 4. The Administrative Medical Officer, Employee State Insurance Scheme, Bihar at P.S. District Patna. 5. The Additional Secretary, Department of Labour Employment and Training, Government of Bihar, Patna. 6. The Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Dept. Government of Bihar, Patna. 7. The Special Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. .... Respondents. ----------- 07- 30.10.2009 None appears on behalf of the appellants. Heard Mr. J.P. Kishore, learned Assistant Counsel to Standing Counsel No.16. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna has been preferred by the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 8392 of 1998 (Dr. Manipal Choudhary vs. The State of Bihar and others), and is aggrieved by the order dated 27.10.1999, whereby writ petition was disposed of with certain directions therein. 2. It appears to us on a perusal of the impugned order that the appellant has approached the writ Court with two-fold relief. It was 2 firstly prayed that a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to promote the appellant to the post of Deputy Director and Director giving him due seniority. This relief was rejected by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the petitioner has already approached this Court earlier by preferring C.W.J.C. No.4426 of 1997, which was permitted to be withdrawn after the arguments. This part of the order cannot be faulted. 3. In so far as the second relief is concerned, petitioner has sought direction to the respondent authorities to grant him the benefit of time-bound promotion in view of the Government Resolution dated 30.12.1989. The Court noticed that this part of the relief was not considered by the respondent authorities and were directed to consider the same in accordance with law. 4. We do not find any cause of action for this appeal. It is a frivolous appeal and is accordingly dismissed. (S K Katriar, J.) (Kishore K. Mandal, J.) S.K.Pathak/