ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Zila Parishad, Gaya as well as learned AC to GA-II on behalf of the State of Bihar. 2. The petitioner seeks a direction from this Court to the respondents to promote him to the post of Clerk in terms of Circular/notification Vide 3/M 2077/91 dated 9.1.1992 with effect from the date of vacancy i.e. 2.9. 1981. He has also sought for a direction that the date of his first time bound promotion be shifted to 2.9.1991 from 2.7.1993 as he completed ten years of service on 2.9.1991. 3. In course of submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner is entitled for second time bound promotion also which has not been given to the petitioner. From the records, it appears that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by way of filing writ application seeking similar relief. One of such writ application i.e. CWJC No. 15823 of 2001 came to be disposed of by an order dated 19.3.2009 by this Court in following terms:- “It is well established in law that right of an employee in respect of promotion is confined to the right of a fair consideration. The stage for such consideration will arise only when the Zila Parishad will take steps for further recruitment/promotion to Class-III post. As soon as that stage is arrived, the case of the petitioner for promotion to Class III post must also be considered by the Zila Parishad, Gaya fairly and in accordance with law.” 4. This is not the case of the petitioner that the stage for such consideration as held by this Court in the order dated 19.3.2009 has arisen and Zila Parishad has taken steps for recruitment/promotion to Class III post. In my opinion, in such circumstance, no positive order can be granted to the petitioner in the present writ application. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2011 (4) PLJR (SC) 129 ( Jagdish Prasad Vs. State of Rajasthan and others) to contend that the Zila Parishad had a duty to consider the case of the petitioner for his promotion against vacant post. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2011 (4) PLJR (SC) 129 ( Jagdish Prasad Vs. State of Rajasthan and others) to contend that the Zila Parishad had a duty to consider the case of the petitioner for his promotion against vacant post. He submits that the posts are in fact vacant but Zila Parishad is not taking steps for such promotion so far as to deny the rightful claim of the employees of the Zila Parishad. 6. The fact remains, however, that on earlier occasion the petitioner had come to this Court and the Court vide order dated 19.3.2009 had disposed of this application with a direction to Zila Parishad to consider the case when the Zila Parishad takes steps for recruitment/promotion to Class III post. In such circumstance the dispute over his claim as regards consideration for his promotion to Class III post attained finality. I am of the view, therefore, that no relief can be granted to the petitioner as claimed in the present writ application. 7. However, Zila Parishad, being the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India has duty to act fairly and if the posts are vacant, the Zila Parishad is required to take decision as to why such posts are not required to be filled up. Certainly such decision must be taken by the Zila Parishad as to whether Class III posts are to be filled up within a period of six months from today. If Zila Parishad comes to the conclusion that the posts are required to be filled up, needless to say that it will act in terms of the order of this Court dated 19.3.2009. 8. With this observation, this writ application is disposed of.