IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2519 of 1995 Rameshwar Nath Mishra, Son of Late Tileshwar Nath Mishra, Resident of Village Manjhwari, Police Station Simri, District Bhojpur at present, Resident of Ram Kutir East Gandhi Murti, Patel Nagar, District Patna. ------ Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Home Commissioner-cum-Home Secretary, Bihar, Patna having his office in Old Secretariate Building, Police Station Sachivalaya, District Patna. 2. The Director General of Police and Inspector General of Police Bihar, Patna having his office in Old secretariate Building, Police Station Sachivalaya, District Patna. 3. The Deputy Secretary Home, (Police) Department of Bihar, Patna having his office in Old Secretariate Building Police Station Sachivalaya, District Patna. 4. The Bihar Public Service Commission, through its Secretary, 15 Bailey Road, Patna. 5. The Director General of Police, (Vigilance) Bihar, Patna, 6 Circular Road, Patna. ------- Respondents ----------- 10 11.8.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The impugned order dated 30.12.1994 in fact is a fall out of an earlier direction of this court in the case of the petitioner himself vide Annexure-11 to the reply affidavit wherein a Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 20th July, 1993 in CWJC No. 4884 of 1990 as also in Civil Review No. 131 of 1992 had held that the petitioner was originally appointed as a Constable in the year 1960 and when he got deputed in Cabinet Vigilance Department he had still preserved his lien in General Police Department and 2 therefore, whatever promotion was granted to him in the Cabinet Vigilance Department would not be binding on the General Police Department. It is in this context that the Division Bench of this Court has also gone to consider the applicability of Rule 649 of the Bihar Police Manual and has ultimately held that the petitioner could not have been promoted to the post of Inspector of Police by Vigilance Department. If all these findings have already been recorded by the Division Bench, the authority who was directed to consider his representation had to only apply himself to the given facts and therefore, the impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner for retrospective promotion cannot be said to be suffering from any error. The order of the Division Bench has since acquired finality between the parties and therefore, the petitioner now is fully bound by the ratio laid down therein. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and the same is accordingly dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)