IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9515 of 2011 Janardan Prasad son of SRI RAM RAKSHA RESIDENT OF NAWADERA, P.S. DUMRAON, DISTRICT BUXAR. Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Rupesh Kumar For the State :- Mr. Bhaskar Shankar, A.C. to G.P. 16. ----- 2 30/08/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The preliminary objection raised on behalf of the State seems to merit consideration. Petitioner had earlier approached the High Court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 12607 of 2004. That was the case when the question of promotion of the petitioner from the post of Assistant Engineer to Executive Engineer was not dealt with by the respondents in fair manner. Petitioner made a grievance that one Tarni Prasad Mandal was given the benefit of promotion to the post of Executive Engineer when he was junior to him in service. The High Court in its order dated 4.1.2008 took note of the situation based on the stand taken by the State but did record categorically that merely because a - 2 - mistake had cropped up in the gradation list, the government servant will not loose his seniority over his right for promotion. A direction, therefore, was issued that on the correct gradation list where the petitioner has been found senior to Tarani Prasad Mandal, he would be given promotion as Executive Engineer from the date his junior Tarani Prasad Mandal was promoted. This order of the learned Single Judge is annexure-8. When the direction of the learned Single Judge was not complied with within the time frame indicated in the order, a contempt application came to be filed by the petitioner which was registered as M.J.C. No. 1485 of 2008. Order passed in the contempt application is annexure-11 to the writ application. From perusal of the said order it is evident that the opposite party i.e. the State filed their show cause, brought the order of promotion which was granted to the petitioner with effect from 3.7.2003 vide memo no. 5389 dated 26.05.2009. Matter was allowed to rest since in the opinion of the Court earlier direction of the Court was complied with. Petitioner is back again raising a grievance that now his promotion should relate to one Rajendra Prasad - 3 - Mandal and not Tarani Prasad Mandal. The issue of grant of promotion was already adjudicated by the learned Single Judge and compliance thereof was made and accepted in terms of the order contained in the contempt application (annexure-11). If the petitioner did not make any mention of Rajendra Prasad Mandal even at the stage when the notification was issued granting him promotion from 3.7.2003 then, with due respect to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the objection raised by the State counsel seems to be valid. This writ application is barred by res judicata, if not constructive res judicata. Such issue cannot be re- agitated again and again. This writ application has no merit. It is dismissed. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)