Judgment R. M. Prasad, J. 1. -in this writ application the petitioners pray for issuance of appropriate direction to the respondents to promote them on the post of Junior Engineer and to pay salary in the scale of Rs.1500-2750/-after their time-bound promotion from 10-11-1995 along with other candidates. 2. In short, the facts of the case is that the petitioners claim to be qualified draftsman having two years Diploma from I. T. I. It is stated that they were directly appointed on the post of draftsmen vide Government letter No.2661 dated 23rd December, 1984 in the scale of Rs.680-15-890-EB-15-965, which was later replaced by the scale of rs.1320-2040 as per the Fourth Pay. Revision Committees report. The petitioners, after completion of ten years, service were given time-bound promotion vide Government letter No.935 and 936 dated 10-11-95. It is claimed by the petitioners that they were drawing the salary in the scale of rs.1320-2040 before their aforesaid time-bound promotion in the year 1995. yet after the time-bound promotion, they have been placed in the scale of Rs.1400-40-1800-50-2300 in place of the replacement scale of Rs.1500-2750. 3. The petitioners claim to have represented before the authorities concerned demanding the aforesaid scale of rs.1500- 2750, vide annexures 3, 3-A and 3-B. But on verbal refusal by the authorities concerned to enhance the scale, they filed the present writ petition. Later, when after filing of the present writ petition, the respondents issued order on 26-3-96 vide letter No.34 cancelling the promotion of the petitioner No.1 granted vide memo No.936 dated 10-11-95 and further directing for the consequential recovery of the excess amount, he challenged the validity of the said office order in the supplementary affidavit; filed on 11-4-96, to which the copy of the said order has been annexed as annexure-4. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Chief Engineer, planning and Monetory Water Resources, Government of Bihar, the Executive Engineers, Planning and Monetary water Resources Division No.18, division No.10 and Division No.7 (respondent Nos.3 to 6, respectively ). 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Chief Engineer, planning and Monetory Water Resources, Government of Bihar, the Executive Engineers, Planning and Monetary water Resources Division No.18, division No.10 and Division No.7 (respondent Nos.3 to 6, respectively ). In the said counter-affidavit it is stated that the prayer of the writ petitioners is wholly misconceived and fit to be rejected, as they were initially appointed as Draftsmen in the scale of Rs.680-965, which was revised and bifurcated on acceptance of the Fifth Pay Revision committees report with effect from 1-1-1986 into Draftsmen Grade I (Rs.1400-2300) and Draftsman Grade II (Rs.1320-2040) and petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 3 were erroneously granted the scale of Draftsman Grade I in place of draftsman Grade II under letter Nos.382, 293 and 354 dated 21-10-94, 9-8-94 and 7-9-94, respectively. According to the said respondents, the said errors were detected and under Letter Nos.134, 150 and 426, dated 26-3-96, 26-4-96 and 27-4-96, respectively they were rectified and the petitioners were granted the scale of Draftsman Grade II with instruction to recover the excess amount paid to them. It is contended that the writ petitioners having completed 10 years of service became due for grant of first time bound promotion and petitioner No.1 under letter No 936 dated 10-11-95 (annexure 2/a) and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 under letter No.935 dated 10-11-95 (annexure-2) have been granted first time-bound promotion in the scale of Draftsman grade II, i. e. Rs.1400-2300 and the assertion to the contrary made in the writ petition that the petitioners have been granted first time-bound promotion in the higher scale has been denied. 5. So far the prayer of the petitioners to promote them on the post of Junior Engineer, it is stated that the same can neither be considered, nor allowed in view of the fact that when the post of Junior Engineer was re-organised and declared gazetted under the state Government Resolution on 4-3-77 it was specifically provided that the appointment on the said post shall only be made through competitive examination organised by the Bihar Police Service commission. The said Government resolution was re-iterated under the state Government resolution No.11585 dated 2-11-87, the scope of which was considered by this Court in the case of ranjan Kumar Sinha in C. W. J. C. No.2385/94 (R) and this Court, vide order dated 6-2-95 directed that as there is no mode of promotion for appointment on the post of Junior Engineer, all promotions made on the said post of Junior engineers be cancelled and in compliance of the said order of this Court, the promotions made on the post of junior Engineers after 2-11-87 have been cancelled vide order bearing No.3106 dated 3-11-96. 6. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in view of the fact that prior to the office order dated 10th November, 95 contained in annexures 2 and 2-A were issued granting time-bound promotion to the petitioners on completion of ten years of service by them, the petitioners were already drawing salary in the scale of Rs.1320-2040, the replacement scale of which was Rs.1400-2300 it was also submitted that by virtue of the Fifth Pay revision Committees recommendation their first time bound promotion granted to them by annexures 2 and 2-A in the scale of Rs.1400-2300. Is erroneous. According to the learned counsel, the petitioners, who were working as Draftsmen, were entitled for replacement scale of Rs.1400-2300 and as a consequence of their first time bound promotion, they are entitled for the scale of Rs.1500-2750. 7. I do not find any substance in the said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. It appears that the petitioners were initially appointed as Draftsmen in the scale of Rs.680-965, which, on revision, as per the fifth Pay Revision Committees report was bifurcated into draftsman grade I and draftsman grade II in the scale of rs.1400-2300 and Rs.1320-2040, respectively with effect from 1-1-86. The petitioners were, however, granted the scale of Draftsman grade I vide letter nos.382, 293 and 354, dated 21-10-94, 9-8-94 and 7-9-94, respectively, though according to the respondents, they were entitled for fixation of their pay in the scale of Draftsman grade II, i. e. Rs.1320-2040. Thus, after the aforesaid errors were detected, the same were rectified under the letter Nos.134, 150 and 426 dated 26-3-96, 24-4-96 and 27-7-96, respectively and the petitioners were granted the scale of Draftsman grade II. Thus, after the aforesaid errors were detected, the same were rectified under the letter Nos.134, 150 and 426 dated 26-3-96, 24-4-96 and 27-7-96, respectively and the petitioners were granted the scale of Draftsman grade II. The writ-petitioners having completed ten years of service became due for time bound promotion and accordingly, they have been granted first time bound promotion in the scale of Draftsman grade I i. e. Rs.1400-2300. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to assail the correctness of the aforementioned stand of the State by referring to the relevant Pay Revision committees recomendation and governmental decision accepting the same or the Rules, if any, relating to their scale. As such, I do not find any infirmity in the orders contained in annexures 2 and 2-A of the writ petition read with annexure-4 of the supplementary affidavit. There is no substance in the prayer of the petitioners to issue direction to promote them on the post of Junior Engineer either in view of the decision of the judgment of this Court in C. W. J. C. No.2385/94 (R), a photo copy whereof has been annexed as annexure-I to the counter-affidavit. In the said case, it was held by the learned single Judge that there is only one mode of appointment for the post of Junior engineer, i. e. fresh appointment and it is not permissible for the officers of the department of Govt. to appoint Junior engineers by adopting different modes. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show from any rule or governmental decision which provides for a mode of filling up the posts of Junior Engineer by promotion of the draftsmen. As such, I find it difficult to hold that the petitioners are entitled for consideration of their cases for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer. 8. Accordingly I do not find any merit in the writ-application and the same is dismissed. Petition Dismissed.