Judgment 1. This Court fails to understand why the present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed when the learned Judge has already observed in his order that "this Court refrains from stating anything on the merit of the individual cases of the petitioners for their promotion to the higher post." The learned Judge has only required the State to consider the matter before it. 2. The issue is not of less posts and many Engineers. It is no use crying that Bihar gets a bad name in being put the last in planning. The fact of the matter is that there is no dedication in planning. An Under Secretary who had sworn the counter affidavit in the writ petition took a very narrow approach on how to deny promotion to those Engineers who are seeking it. 3. There is much more planning which has to be done. The State seems to be referring to the 85th amendment of the Constitution. The State apparently has not diverted its attention to 73rd and 74th amendments of the Constitution particularly of Engineers who will be required for putting its planning into place and this aspect has been noticed by this Court in its decision in re Bihar Rajya Zila Parishad Abhiyantran Seva Sangh & Ors. V/s. Raj Deo Sinha and ano. (2003) Bihar Law Journal Reports 1. In this case this Court had required the State to consider what exactly will be the strength of the Engineers from the lowest till highest. Once the sanctioned strength of the Engineers is put in position, regard being had to the obligations on the State in view of 73rd and 74th amendments particularly the obligation of putting the District Planning Committees in place (Article 243ZD) on the subjects referred to in Eleventh and Twelfth Schedules, there is neither any dearth of any posts nor any issue that the Engineers who may be entitled to their rightful promotions should not be considered. The only aspect is that the administration does not have the will to execute the plans. 4. There is no error in the order of the learned Judge. 5. Dismissed.