Judgment 1. This is hardly a matter in which an appeal should be filed. 2. The Court has heard Mr. V.N. Sinha, G.P.9 in the context of the counter affidavit in an answer to the petition which lies on record. The counter affidavit has been affirmed by an Additional Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms. Between the order which has been challenged by the State of Bihar (C.W.J.C. No. 1141 of 1994 dated 3 July, 1995) and the statement which has been made in the counter affidavit, learned State counsel submitted that he is not in a position to reconcile the decision already taken by the government duly approved by the Cabinet. More than this, he says, he cannot submit beyond the record. 3. The issue plainly was whether the petitioner respondent Devendra Nath Pandey was entitled to being considered for promotion to the rank of Additional District Magistrate. The learned Judge recorded in the order on the writ petition that posts were available. Besides, it was also noticed that the Cabinet had approved the promotion to the higher scale as admissible to an Additional District Magistrate. The submission on behalf of the State government that the promotion could not be made as no vacant post was available in the higher post of Additional District Magistrate was not accepted. The observations of the learned Judge are based on the submissions made on behalf of the State of Bihar and so recorded in the counter affidavit. 4. The Statement in the counter affidavit is reproduced : "..................... In the case of petitioner it is true that the promotion Committee recommended his name for promotion in the higher scale of A.D.M. and the Cabinet also approved it................... the recommendation of Departmental Promotion Committee was there and the same was approved by the Cabinet also." 5 After this, the government has no status to file this Letters Patent Appeal. Whether the government has taken a decision right or wrong, this is a matter within the government. 6. Further, the counter affidavit apparently takes some exception as to how the petitioner came in possession of letter no. 11773 dated 30 November, 1993. Whether the government has taken a decision right or wrong, this is a matter within the government. 6. Further, the counter affidavit apparently takes some exception as to how the petitioner came in possession of letter no. 11773 dated 30 November, 1993. The government may have worked confidentially but the information is not classified and in any case if there was an issue pending in Court it was the ingenuity of the petitioner to place this decision as lies on the record and in the interest of public justice. 7. Further, all that the Court had required in its order on the writ petition is that the government should consider the matter. To file an appeal in the face of a cabinet decision reflects badly on the working of the government. 8. Dismissed.