IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13363 of 2000 SHASHI BHUSHAN PRASAD GUPTA, son of Late Yadubansh Prasad Gupta, resident of Mohalla Kashipur, P.O. and P.S. Samastipur, District Samastipur … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Chief Secretary to the Govt., Bihar, Patna 3. The Secretary and Commissioner, Road Construction Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Vishwesharaiya Bhawan, Patna 4. Deputy Secretary Incharge Establishment, Road Construction Department, Govt. of Bihar, Vishwesharaiya Bhawan, Patna 5. Engineer-in-Chief cum Addl. Commissioner cum Special Secretary, Road Construction Department, Vishwesharaiya Bhawan, Patna 6. The Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, 15, Bailey Road, Patna … Respondents. ----------- 7. 8.7.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. In this writ application the prayer of the petitioner reads as follows: “ This writ petition has been preferred for and on behalf of the petitioner abovenamed for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondent authorities to promote the petitioner to the post of Assistant Engineer (B.E.S. Class II) from due date inasmuch as many of his juniors in the gradation list have been promoted as such.” This Court in fact had passed a long order on 25.4.2008 directing the 2 respondent authorities of the State Government and that of the Bihar Public Service Commission to consider the case of the petitioner for his regular promotion and it appears that pursuant to the aforementioned order of this Court the respondents ultimately have considered the case of the petitioner for promotion and have also notified such promotion by a notification No. 1992(S) dated 9.3.2009 whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been given promotion on the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in Bihar Engineering Service Class II with effect from 4.8.1999 with all financial benefits. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that he should be given some time to take instruction from the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court there will be no necessity for adjourning this case because solitary relief prayed in this application stands already given to the petitioner by the aforementioned notification dated 9.3.2009. That being so, this Court must hold that this application has become infructuous 3 and accordingly, is dismissed with an observation that if the petitioner has still any further grievance as a consequence of the said notification dated 9.3.2009 it will be always open for him to raise the same in the first instance before the concerned respondents who would be under an obligation to consider the same and pass an appropriate reasoned order. With the aforementioned observation, this application stands dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/