IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.33 of 2007 MUKTA MOHAN DAS son of late Triloki Nath Das resident of village Thana Colony, Police Station Bounsi, District Banka Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through Finance Commissioner cum Secretary, Bihar, Patna 2. The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Bihar, Patna 3. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna 4. The Incharge Officer, Finance (Personal Claim Fixation Section) Department, Bihar, Patna 5. The Under Secretary, Water Resources Department, Bihar, Patna 6. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Bihar, Patna 7. The Superintendent Engineer, Tubewell Division, Patna 8. The Executive Engineer, Tubewell Division, Munger ----------- 03/ 09.09.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. By filing the present review application, petitioner is seeking review of the order dated 15.1.2007, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 715 of 2004, whereunder the said writ application has been dismissed upholding the notification of the State Government dated 10.10.2003, Annexure-6 to the writ application whereunder his time bound promotion in the scale of Assistant Engineer has been withdrawn on the ground that he was appointed as Sub-Overseer and thereafter promoted as Overseer and then as Assistant Engineer. In the circumstances, petitioner having obtained two substantive promotions was not entitled for grant of time bound promotion and this Court under the said order dated 15.1.2007 affirmed the Government notification dated 10.10.2003 cancelling the two time bound promotions. 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks review of the aforesaid order on the ground that true it is that the petitioner was initially appointed as Sub-Overseer and thereafter promoted as Overseer and Assistant Engineer, but while petitioner served as Overseer, Government order was issued promoting him as Overseer with effect from the date of appointment as Sub- Overseer and as the promotion on the post of Overseer related back to the date of appointment on the post of Sub-Overseer, he should be deemed to have been appointed as Overseer and thereafter promoted as Assistant Engineer. In the circumstances, he having earned one promotion as Assistant Engineer, his case for grant of second time bound promotion should have been considered. 4. I regret not to accept such submission, in view of the fact that petitioner was initially appointed as Sub-Overseer then promoted as Overseer and thereafter as Assistant Engineer. By shifting back the date of promotion as Overseer with effect from the date of appointment as Sub-Overseer the nature of initial appointment as Sub-Overseer shall not change. 5. This review application is, accordingly, dismissed. Arjun/ ( V.N. Sinha, J.)