ORDER : Rakesh Kumar, J. The present writ petition was heard at length and after hearing Sri Vinod Kumar Kanth, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Chandramauli Chaurasia, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Counsel to Addl. Advocate General - IX on 03-04-2017, the order was reserved. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court invoking its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs:- I. For commanding the respondents concern to grant the first Time Bound/Personal promotion to the petitioner from the post of Assistant Professor in Civil Engineering to the post of Associate Professor in Civil Engineering with effect from 14/08/1983 and also to grant him the second Time Bound/Personal promotion from the post of Associate Professor in Civil Engineering to the post of Professor in Civil Engineering with effect from 14/08/1990 which is admissible to the petitioner with all consequential financial pensionary benefits etc. payable to him in accordance with law revised from time to time by the respondents State concern restoring the seniority of the petitioner over his Juniors in pursuant to the Notifications contained in Annexure - 2, 8, 9 and 23 of the Writ Application. II. For commanding the respondents concern to ignore or Annul or Condone or relax the cut off date i.e. dated 01/03/1989 mentioned in the Notification contained in Memo No. 379 dated 16/02/1990 and the Notification contained in Memo No.6540 dated 09/10/2006 issued by the State Govt. contained in Annexure - 9 and 23 of the Writ Application with respect to grant the second Time Bound/Personal promotion to petitioner from the post of Associate Professor to the post of Professor in Civil Engineering with effect from 14/08/1990 with all consequential financial benefits etc. payable to him as per law revised from time to time by the respondents State authorities concern in pursuant to the Notifications contained in Annexure- 2, 8, 9 and 23 of the Writ Application in the facts and circumstances of the case of the petitioner since the said Two Time Bound/Personal promotions have not been granted to the petitioner at the relevant time under the said state sponsored merit promotion scheme by the respondents concern due to the own latches, biased attitudes and negligence on the part of the respondents concern in the case of the petitioner only for the same. III. III. For commanding the respondents concern to grant the said Two Time Bound/Personal promotions to the petitioner with retrospective effect under the State sponsored merit promotion scheme in pursuant to the Notifications contained in Annexure - 2, 8 and 9 of the Writ Application with all consequential financial benefits etc. payable to the petitioner as per law revised from time to time by the respondents concern and after continuing the said Two Time Bound/Personal promotions to him with all consequential monetary benefits etc. admissible to him as per law the respondents concern be further directed to grant and pay the revised pay scale to the petitioner with effect from 01/01/1996 with all consequential benefits, arrears etc and other financial benefits admissible to him as per law in pursuant to the Notification contained in Memo No. 6540 dated 09/10/2006 contained in Annexure - 23 of the Writ Application. IV. For quashing of the order dated 30/01/2002 issued by the respondent No. 1 under the signature of the respondent No. 4 contained in Memo No. 200 dated 04/02/2002 contained in Annexure - 17 of the Writ Application whereby and where under the grant of due Two Time Bound/Personal promotions with retrospective effect to the petitioner only have been rejected by the respondents concern on erroneous considerations in an illegally, arbitrary and biased manner violating the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India in the facts and circumstances of the case of the petitioner. V. For commanding the respondents concern to consider the case of the petitioner for grant him the said Two Time Bound/Personal promotions on the post of Associate Professor as also on the post of Professor in Civil Engineering with all consequential benefits etc. payable to him as per law at least from the dates on which Juniors were promoted on the said post with all consequential benefits etc. vide Annexure - 6, 7, 10, 10/A and 11 of the Writ Application. VI. For commanding the respondents concern to pay the compensation, loss or damages to petitioner knowingly and willingly caused to the petitioner only by the respondents concern in Govt. Polytechnics in the State of Bihar for giving him mental Torturing as yet and the physical as well as the Economic harassments alone to the petitioner even after lapses of more than six years of his retirement from services on the post of Assistant Professor in Govt. Polytechnics in the State of Bihar for giving him mental Torturing as yet and the physical as well as the Economic harassments alone to the petitioner even after lapses of more than six years of his retirement from services on the post of Assistant Professor in Govt. Polytechnic and also the costs of forced litigations time and again along with an interest of 18% per annum. VII. And further for grant of any other appropriate relief or reliefs for which the petitioner is entitled for in the facts and circumstances of the case of the petitioner on record. 3. Short fact of the petitioner's case is that he, being B.Sc. Engineering (Civil) Graduate, was initially appointed as a Lecturer, Civil Engineering, in Government Polytechnic Gaya, vide an order issued by the Principal of the Govt. Polytechnic Gaya and he joined the said post of Lecturer on 14-08-1965. Subsequently, his appointment was confirmed by an order dated 09-09-1965 issued by the Director, Department of Industry and Technical Education, Govt. of Bihar. He was confirmed as Lecturer, Civil Engineering, in Govt. Polytechnic, Gaya. Subsequently, he was transferred to Saharsa in the year 1968 in the same capacity and thereafter, he was appointed as Assistant Professor, Civil Engineering, in the Govt. Polytechnic, Saharsa. In the same capacity, he functioned at different places and lastly, functioning as Assistant Professor in Govt. Polytechnic, Barauni, Begusarai, he superannuated with effect from 30-09-2002. It has been pleaded that petitioner had also obtained Diploma in Technical Teaching from T.T.T.I. Kolkata in 1978-79 sponsored by the department itself. It has been claimed that during his service period, number of juniors to the petitioner were granted promotion, but the case of petitioner was ignored. 4. Sri Kanth, learned senior counsel at the very outset had drawn attention of the Court to a Notification dated 08-09-1987 i.e. Annexure - 2 to the writ petition and he has argued that Government had already taken a decision to grant time bound/personal promotion to Assistant Professors, having M.A./M.Sc. or B.Sc. Engineering and continuing for about 18 years, as Associate Professor. He has argued that in view of Annexure - 2 to the writ petition, several persons were granted time bound/personal promotion ignoring the case of the petitioner. or B.Sc. Engineering and continuing for about 18 years, as Associate Professor. He has argued that in view of Annexure - 2 to the writ petition, several persons were granted time bound/personal promotion ignoring the case of the petitioner. He has specifically drawn attention of this Court on Annexures 6 and 7 to the writ petition to persuade the Court that even persons, junior to the petitioner, were granted benefit of time bound/personal promotion, but the case of the petitioner was ignored. Learned senior counsel has also assailed Clause - 6 of Memo no. 379 dated 16-02-1990 (Annexure - 9 to the writ petition). He submits that the condition imposed for giving option within 90 days and failure to give option was considered as deemed acceptance for revisional pay-scale was unreasonable. He has argued that petitioner's claim for time bound/personal promotion was not considered only taking aid of Clause - 6 of Annexure - 9 to the writ petition. It has been emphasized that non-granting time bound/personal promotion to the petitioner during his entire service period was arbitrary and unsustainable. To substantiate his submission that petitioner was entitled for promotion, he has placed reliance on (1999) 7 SCC 209 (Ajit Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others) and he has relied on paragraph - 22 of the judgment, which is quoted herein below :- "22. Article 14 and Article 16(1) are closely connected. They deal with individual rights of the person. Article 14 demands that the "State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws". Article 16(1) issues a positive command that "there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State". It has been held repeatedly by this Court that clause (1) of Article 16 is a facet of Article 14 and that it takes its roots from Article 14. The said clause particularizes the generality in Article 14 and identifies, in a constitutional sense "equality of opportunity" in matters of employment and appointment to any office under the State. The word "employment" being wider, there is no dispute that it takes within its fold, the aspect of promotions to posts above the stage of initial level of recruitment. The said clause particularizes the generality in Article 14 and identifies, in a constitutional sense "equality of opportunity" in matters of employment and appointment to any office under the State. The word "employment" being wider, there is no dispute that it takes within its fold, the aspect of promotions to posts above the stage of initial level of recruitment. Article 16(1) provides to every employee otherwise eligible for promotion or who comes within the zone of consideration, a fundamental right to be "considered" for promotion. Equal opportunity here means the right to be "considered" for promotion. If a person satisfies the eligibility and zone criteria but is not considered for promotion, then there will be a clear infraction of his fundamental right to be "considered" for promotion, which is his personal right. "Promotion" based on equal opportunity and "seniority" attached to such promotion are facets of fundamental right under Article 16(1)" 5. He has further placed reliance on (2010) 4 SCC 290 (Union of India and another v. Hemraj Singh Chauhan and others) and has referred to paragraph nos. 36, 38, 40 and 41, which are quoted herein below :- "36. It is an accepted legal position that the right of eligible employees to be considered for promotion is virtually a part of their fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution. The guarantee of a fair consideration in matters of promotion under Article 16 virtually flows from guarantee of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. 38. It is, therefore, clear that legitimate expectations of the respondents of being considered for promotion have been defeated by the acts of the Government and if not of the Central Government, certainly the unreasonable inaction on the part of the Government of State of Uttar Pradesh stood in the way of the respondents' chances of promotion from being fairly considered when it is due for such consideration and delay has made them ineligible for such consideration. Now the question which is weighing on the conscience of this Court is how to fairly resolve this controversy. 40. This Court is not very much impressed with the aforesaid contention. The word "ordinarily" must be given its ordinary meaning. While construing the word the Court must not be oblivious of the context in which it has been used. Now the question which is weighing on the conscience of this Court is how to fairly resolve this controversy. 40. This Court is not very much impressed with the aforesaid contention. The word "ordinarily" must be given its ordinary meaning. While construing the word the Court must not be oblivious of the context in which it has been used. In the case in hand the word "ordinarily" has been used in the context of promotional opportunities of the officers concerned. In such a situation the word "ordinarily" has to be construed in order to fulfil the statutory intent for which it has been used. 41. The word "ordinarily", of course, means that it does not promote a cast-iron rule, it is flexible (see Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar { (1976) 1 SCC 671 } at SCC p. 682, para 35). It excludes something which is extraordinary or special (Eicher Tractors Ltd. v. Commr. of Customs { (2001) 1 SCC 315 } at SCC p. 319, para 6). The word "ordinarily" would convey the idea of something which is done "normally" (Krishan Gopal v. Prakashchandra { (1974) 1 SCC 128 } at SCC p. 134, para 12) and "generally" subject to special provision (Mohan Baitha v. State of Bihar { (2001) 4 SCC 350 } at SCC p. 354)." 6. He has also placed reliance on a Constitution Bench judgment, reported in AIR 1983 SC 130 (D.S. Nakara and others v. Union of India) and referred to paragraph nos. 49 and 58 of the judgment, which are incorporated herein below :- "49. But we make it abundantly clear that arrears are not required to be made because to that extent the scheme if prospective. All pensioners whenever they retired would be covered by the liberalized pension scheme, because the scheme is a scheme for payment of pension to a pensioner governed by 1972 Rules. The date of retirement is irrelevant. But the revised scheme would be operative from the date mentioned in the scheme and would bring under its umbrella all existing pensioners and those who retired subsequent to that date. In case of pensioners who retired prior to the specified date, their pension would be computed afresh and would be payable in future commencing from the specified date. No arrears would be payable. And that would take care of the grievance of retrospectivity. In case of pensioners who retired prior to the specified date, their pension would be computed afresh and would be payable in future commencing from the specified date. No arrears would be payable. And that would take care of the grievance of retrospectivity. In our opinion, it would make a marginal difference in the case of past pensioners because the emoluments are not revised. The last revision of emoluments was as per the recommendation of the Third Pay Commission (Raghubar Dayal Commission). If the emoluments remain the same, the computation of average emoluments under amended R. 34 may raise the average emoluments, the period for averaging being reduced from last 36 months to last 10 months. The slab will provide slightly higher pension and if someone reaches the maximum the old lower ceiling will not deny him what is otherwise justly due on computation. The words "who were in service on 31st March, 1979 and retiring from service on or after that date" excluding the date for commencement of revision are words of limitation introducing the mischief and are vulnerable as denying equality and introducing an arbitrary fortuitous circumstance can be served without impairing the formula. Therefore, there is absolutely no difficulty in removing the arbitrary and discriminatory portion of the scheme and it can be easily severed. 58. Now if the choice of date is arbitrary, eligibility criteria is unrelated to the object sought to be achieved and has the pernicious tendency of dividing an otherwise homogeneous class, the question is whether the liberalized pension scheme must wholly fail or that the pernicious part can be severed, cautioning itself that this Court does not legislate but merely interpretes keeping in view the underlying intention and the object, the impugned measure seeks to subserve? Even though it is not possible to oversimplify the issue, let us read the impugned memoranda deleting the unconstitutional part. Omitting, it the memoranda will read like this: "At present, pension is calculated at the rate of 1/80th of average emoluments for each completed year of service and is subject to a maximum of 33/80 of average emoluments and is further restricted to a monetary limit of Rs. 1,000/- per month. Omitting, it the memoranda will read like this: "At present, pension is calculated at the rate of 1/80th of average emoluments for each completed year of service and is subject to a maximum of 33/80 of average emoluments and is further restricted to a monetary limit of Rs. 1,000/- per month. The President is, now, pleased to decide that with effect 31st March, 1979 the amount of pension shall be determined in accordance with the following slabs." If from the impugned memoranda the event of being in service and retiring subsequent to specified date is severed, all pensioners would be governed by the liberalized pension scheme. The pension will have to be recomputed in accordance with the provisions of the liberalized pension scheme as salaries were required to be recomputed in accordance with the recommendation of the Third Pay Commission but becoming operative from the specified date. It does therefore appear that the reading down of impugned memoranda by severing the objectionable portion would not render the liberalized pension scheme vague unenforceable or unworkable." 7. However, it has not been disputed that almost for the same relief, the petitioner had earlier approached this Court and by order dated 28-09-2005 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3580 of 2002, the prayer of the petitioner was rejected. It has been argued that against the order of the Single Bench, the petitioner had preferred an appeal, vide L.P.A. No. 1239 of 2005. However, since during pendency of the appeal, certain development had taken place and a Notification dated 09-10-2006 (Annexure-23) was issued, the appellant (petitioner) sought permission to withdraw the appeal so that he may take recourse to the law. It has been reiterated that for such a long time of his service tenure the petitioner was not given any promotion. According to learned senior counsel for the petitioner, even order passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3580 of 2002 dated 28-09-2005 was contrary to the judgments, as referred herein above of the Apex Court. According to learned senior counsel for the petitioner, the respondents must be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of time bound/personal promotion, in view of the fact that juniors to the petitioner were already granted the same relief. 8. In this case, a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent no. 2. According to learned senior counsel for the petitioner, the respondents must be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of time bound/personal promotion, in view of the fact that juniors to the petitioner were already granted the same relief. 8. In this case, a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent no. 2. Learned State counsel has raised objection on maintainability of the writ petition and submits that the writ petition is barred by principle of the res judicata, as the issue, which has been raised in the present writ petition, has already been adjudicated by this Court in its order dated 28-09-2005 in C.W.J.C. No. 3580 of 2002. It has also been argued that petitioner may not get any benefit, in view of the Government Notification dated 09-10-2006. 9. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to reiterate the statement made by the petitioner in paragraph - 2 of the writ petition, which is as follows:- "2. That the petitioner had earlier moved this Hon'ble Court in C.W.J.C. No.16267 of 2001 for redressal of his grievances with respect to give directions to the respondents concern to grant him the said Two Time Bound/Personal promotions with all consequential benefits etc. from the retrospective effect and said Writ Application was disposed of vide order dated 03/01/2002 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narayan Roy contained in Annexure - 15 of this Writ Application with a direction to the petitioner to file a representation before the respondents concern for redressal of his grievances and the same should be considered and disposed of as per law by the respondents concern within three months from the date of filing of such representation on behalf of the petitioner and thereafter the petitioner had filed a representation on dated 21/01/2002 before the respondent no. 1 contained in Annexure - 16 for redressal of his grievances as stated above which was rejected vide order contained in Memo No. 200 dated 04/02/2002 passed by the respondent no. 1 contained in Annexure - 17 and thereafter the petitioner moved this Hon'ble Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3580 of 2002 on 11/03/2002 for quashing of the order contained in Memo No. 200 dated 04/02/2002 issued by the respondent no. 1 contained in Annexure - 17 and thereafter the petitioner moved this Hon'ble Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3580 of 2002 on 11/03/2002 for quashing of the order contained in Memo No. 200 dated 04/02/2002 issued by the respondent no. 2 contained in Annexure - 17 whereby and where under the grant of Two Time Bound/Personal promotions to the petitioner was rejected and the said C.W.J.C. No. 3580 of 2002 filed on behalf of the petitioner was also rejected vide order dated 28/09/2005 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Radha Mohan Prasad contained in Annexure - 22/A of the Writ Application and against which the petitioner preferred one L.P.A. No. 1239 of 2005 in this Hon'ble Court on 27/10/2005 and thereafter the said L.P.A. No. 1239 of 2005 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 12/01/2007 passed by a Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court presiding over by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narayan Roy and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Kumar Tripathi contained in Annexure - 26 of the Writ Application with a direction/observation that the Appellant (petitioner) may take recourse to law in case he would be aggrieved by the Notification contained in Memo No. 6540 dated 09/10/2006 contained in Annexure - 23 of the instant Writ Application for redressal of his grievances and thereafter the petitioner has not moved this Hon'ble Court for the reliefs sought for in this Writ Application and he has filed the instant Writ Application for the reliefs sought for in paragraph No. 1 of the Writ Application for the first time after the observation or direction given by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 12/01/2007 passed in L.P.A. No. 1239 of 2005 in the facts and circumstances of the case." 10. It is admitted fact that the petitioner for the same relief had earlier filed two writ petitions before this court. For the first time, his writ petition i.e. C.W.J.C. No. 16267 of 2001 was disposed of on 03-01-2002 with observation that if so advised, the petitioner may represent his matter before the competent authority for redressal of his grievance and in case, it is so done, the same shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law within specified time. The said order has been brought on record as Annexure - 15 to the writ petition. The said order has been brought on record as Annexure - 15 to the writ petition. After the order of the writ court dated 03-01-2002, the petitioner filed a detailed representation i.e. Annexure - 16 to the writ petition. In compliance with the order of the writ court, the Secretary, Science and Technology Department considered the representation of the petitioner and rejected his claim for time bound/personal promotion. It was observed in order contained in Memo No. 200 dated 04-02-2002 (Annexure - 17 to the writ petition) that by Departmental Notification No. 379 dated 16-02-1990, after 01-03-1989, in view of A.I.C.T.E. provisions, there was no provision for time bound promotion and promotion on merit. In case of those Assistant Professors, who had accepted the revisional pay-scale in their cases, the provision of A.I.C.T.E. was applicable. It was indicated that since the petitioner was getting revisional pay-scale, he was not entitled to get time bound/personal promotion and accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner for grant of time bound/personal promotion was rejected. However, it was made clear that in view of A.I.C.T.E. provisions, under the Career Advancement Scheme, formality in respect of petitioner and others to be completed and be placed before the Public Service Commission. The order, contained in Memo No. 200 dated 04-02-2002 (Annexure-17) passed by the Secretary, Science and Technology Department, was assailed by the petitioner by filing a writ petition, vide C.W.J.C. No. 3580 of 2002. After hearing the parties, a Bench of this Court by its order dated 28-09-2005 dismissed the same. At this juncture, the Court proposes to incorporate the order dated 28-09-2005 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3580 of 2002 (Annexure-22/A to the writ petition), which is as follows :- "In the writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the order contained in Memo No. 200 dated 4.2.2002 (Annexure-18) by which he has been denied of first and second time bound promotion on the plea that he did not exercise option within 90 days as per the Government decision contained in Annexure-10. 2. Petitioner was initially appointed as Lecturer of Civil Engineering in Government Polytechnic, Gaya and joined on 14.8.1965. On 16.7.1969 he was appointed as Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering and was posted at Government Polytechnic, Saharsa vide Annexure-1. 3. 2. Petitioner was initially appointed as Lecturer of Civil Engineering in Government Polytechnic, Gaya and joined on 14.8.1965. On 16.7.1969 he was appointed as Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering and was posted at Government Polytechnic, Saharsa vide Annexure-1. 3. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that when persons junior to the petitioner were granted two time bound promotions and he was denied of the same, he filed several representations for redressal of his said grievance and ultimately he filed writ petition before this Court bearing C.W.J.C. No. 16267 of 2001, which was disposed of vide order dated 3.1.2002 (Annexure-16) with an observation that the petitioner, if so advised, may represent his matter before the competent authority for redressal of his grievances and in case it is so done, the same shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law. Accordingly, the petitioner filed representation on 21.1.2002, which was rejected by the order impugned dated 30.1.2002 (Annexure-18) on the plea that the petitioner did not exercise his option as per paragraph 6 of the memo dated 16.2.1990 (Annexure-10) within 90 days from the date of issuance of the said memo. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court in several cases passed order directing the authorities to grant first and second time bound promotions to similarly situated persons and even junior to the petitioner have been granted such promotion. In support of this, by filing supplementary affidavit, petitioner has annexed an order dated 10.2.2005 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 10262 of 1999 (Bachcha Jha v. The State of Bihar and Ors.) as Annexure-19. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Prof. Dr. Amarnath Singh and ors. v. State of Bihar and ors., reported in 2002 (1) PLJR 716 . 4. A counter and supplementary counter affidavit have been filed on behalf of Respondent nos. 1 to 5 in which it is stated that the claim of the petitioner was rejected because the petitioner did not exercise his option as per provisions of memo no. 379 dated 16.2.1990 (Annexure-10). 5. Learned State counsel submitted that as the petitioner did not exercise option, which he admitted before the Secretary, Science and Technology, the memo dated 16.2.1990 (Annexure-10) was applicable in his case and time bound promotion could not be granted to him. 6. 379 dated 16.2.1990 (Annexure-10). 5. Learned State counsel submitted that as the petitioner did not exercise option, which he admitted before the Secretary, Science and Technology, the memo dated 16.2.1990 (Annexure-10) was applicable in his case and time bound promotion could not be granted to him. 6. I find substance in the submission of learned State counsel. By Annexure-10 University Grants Commission pay scale were granted to the teachers of Government Polytechnic, who were appointed prior to 5.1.1979. Paragraph 6 of this memo gives an opportunity to the teachers to convey their willingness within 90 days, whether they want to opt the revised pay scale or not. If any teacher fails to comply this order, it will be deemed that they have opted to remain in the revised pay scale and their case of promotion will be decided as per recommendation of All India Council for Technical Education. Since the petitioner did not exercise option, it was presumed that he has opted to remain in the revised pay scale. The ground taken in the order impugned is that there is no provision for time bound promotion and merit promotion under the provisions of A.I.C.T.E. after 1.3.1989 and since the petitioner is getting the revised pay-scale, he is not entitled for time bound promotion as claimed by him, which cannot be said to be unjustified. 7. I failed to appreciate as to how the order of this Court in the case of Bachcha Jha v. State of Bihar (Annexure-19) relied upon by the petitioner is of any help to him. It appears from the order passed in the case of Bachcha Jha that he was on deputation in the Department of Industry and his case was recommended and forwarded to the Industries Department for time bound promotion, but, it was some how missed out though persons similarly situated had been promoted as Associate Professor and Professor and monetary benefit was also given to him. This fact was not denied in the counter affidavit rather the recommendation of Bachcha Jha in 1994 was accepted. Accordingly, the Court held that the same benefit was required to be given to said Bachcha Jha also. The question of non-exercise of option was neither raised nor considered in the case of Bachcha Jha. 8. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Prof. Dr. Accordingly, the Court held that the same benefit was required to be given to said Bachcha Jha also. The question of non-exercise of option was neither raised nor considered in the case of Bachcha Jha. 8. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Prof. Dr. Amarnath Singh v. State of Bihar (supra) is also of no help to him. In the said case the matter for consideration before the Court was denial of revised U.G.C. Scales of pay to the University and college teachers of the State and the Court held that denial of revised pay scale is arbitrary as no indication whatsoever was ever given to the concerned teachers that their option for promotion under the time bound promotion statutes would make them liable to face some handicap or disability in future. In the said case the petitioner had exercised option, whereas in the present case the petitioner admittedly did not exercise option on account of which pursuant to the Government decision, contained in Annexure - 10, he is not entitled to get time bound promotion. 9. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this writ application. It is, thus, dismissed." 11. The petitioner aggrieved with the order dated 28-09-2005 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3580 of 2002 preferred an appeal, vide L.P.A. No. 1239 of 2005. It is evident that during pendency of the appeal, certain subsequent development had taken place, but in any way, on 12-01-2007, on the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn (Annexure - 26 to the writ petition). The order dated 12-01-2007 is quoted herein below :- "In view of the subsequent development, learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission to withdraw his appeal, so that the appellant may take recourse to law in case he would be aggrieved by the notification dated 9.10.2006, as contained in annexure 1. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn." 12. The order dated 12-01-2007 is quoted herein below :- "In view of the subsequent development, learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission to withdraw his appeal, so that the appellant may take recourse to law in case he would be aggrieved by the notification dated 9.10.2006, as contained in annexure 1. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn." 12. The Court is of the opinion that once the relief, which has been sought for in the present writ petition, was already rejected by a coordinate Bench of this Court long back in the year 2005 and same was not even unsettled by the Division Bench, at least, the same coordinate Bench is not having competence to alter the earlier order passed by the writ court i.e. order dated 28-09-2005 in C.W.J.C. No. 3580 of 2002. However, since L.P.A. No. 1239 of 2005 was withdrawn, in view of Notification dated 09-10-2006, there is only limited scope to examine the claim of the petitioner, but prior to examining Notification dated 09-10-2006 i.e. Annexure - 23 to the writ petition, it would be necessary to examine earlier resolution of the State Government dated 04-09-2003. The said resolution i.e. Resolution No. 6736 dated 04-09-2003 has been brought on record as Annexure - 20 to the writ petition. The Govt. The said resolution i.e. Resolution No. 6736 dated 04-09-2003 has been brought on record as Annexure - 20 to the writ petition. The Govt. Resolution dated 04-09-2003 would be necessary to be quoted, which is as follows :- **ladYi la[;k fcgkj ljdkj foRr foHkkx ladYi fo"k;%& foKku ,oa izkoSf/kdh foHkkx ds v/khuLFk jktdh; iksfyVsdfud laLFkkuksa esa fnukad 05-01-1979 ds iwoZ fu;qDr f'k{kdksa ds fy, vf[ky Hkkjrh; rduhdh f'k{kk ifj"kn~ }kjk vuq'kkflr ,oa Hkkjr ljdkj ds ekuo lalk/ku fodkl ea=ky; }kjk Lohd`r iqujhf{kr osrueku fnukad 01-01-1996 ds izHkko ls Lohd`r djus ds laca/k esaA 1- jkT; ljdkj ds foKku ,oa izkoSf/kdh foHkkx ds v/khuLFk jktdh; iksfyVsdfud laLFkkuksa esa fnukad 05-01-1979 ds iwoZ fu;qDr f'k{kdksa dks vf[ky Hkkjrh; rduhdh f'k{kk ifj"kn~ ¼,0vkbZ0lh0Vh0bZ0½] ubZ fnYyh }kjk vuq'kkflr ,oa Hkkjr ljdkj ds ekuo lalk/ku fodkl ea=ky; ¼f'k{kk foHkkx½ ds i=kad&,Q&6&1@88&Vh0&5] fnukad 28-02-1989 }kjk Lohd`r osrueku] lHkh lsok 'krksZa ,oa ca/kstksa ds lkFk fnukad 01-01-1986 ds izHkko ls foKku ,oa izkoSf/kdh foHkkx ds Lohd`R;kns'k la0 fo0 izk0t0v0&3@89&90@379 fnukad 16-02-1990 }kjk Lohd`r fd;k x;k FkkA 2- iape osru vk;ksx ds vuq'kalk ds vkyksd esa dsUnzh; deZpkfj;ksa ds osru iqujh{k.k fd;s tkus ds QyLo:i vf[ky Hkkjrh; rduhdh f'k{kk ifj"kn~ ¼,0vkbZ0lh0Vh0bZ0½] ubZ fnYyh us] Hkkjr ljdkj ds ekuo lalk/ku fodkl ea=ky; ¼f'k{kk foHkkx½ ds Lohd`R;ksijkar] vius i=kad ,Q0u0&1&65@lhMh@,u0bZ0lh0@98&99] fnukad 15-03-2000 }kjk ,0vkbZ0lh0Vh0bZ0 ,DV ls vkPNkfnr vfHk;a=.k egkfo|ky;ksa@vU; Lukrd Lrjh; rduhdh laLFkkuksa esa dk;Zjr f'k{kdksa ds fy, izksUufr ,oa vU; lsok 'krksZa ds lkFk iqujhf{kr osrueku Lohd`r djus dh vuq'kalk dh xbZ gS rFkk jkT; ljdkjksa dks vko';d dkjZokbZ gsrq ifjpkfyr fd;k gSA rn~uqlkj osru iqujh{k.k laca/kh izLrko jkT; ljdkjksa ds fopkjk/khu FkkA 3- jkT; ljdkj }kjk lE;d~ fopkjksijkUr foKku ,oa izkoSf/kdh foHkkx ds v/khuLFk jktdh; iksfyVsdfud laLFkkuksa esa fnukad 05-01-1979 ds iwoZ fu;qDr f'k{kdksa dks vf[ky Hkkjrh; rduhdh f'k{kk ifj"kn~ ¼,0vkbZ0lh0Vh0bZ0½] ubZ fnYyh ds i=kad ,Q0u0&1&65@lhMh@,u0bZ0lh0@98&99] fnukad 15-03-2000 }kjk vf/klwfpr fuEukafdr iqujhf{kr osrueku mDr laLFkkuksa esa inksa ,oa inukeksa dks ,0vkbZ0lh0Vh0bZ0 dh laLrqr lajpuk esa vafdr inksa ,oa inukeksa ds vuq:i ifjofrZr djrs gq, fnukad 01-01-1996 ds izHkko ls Lohd`r djus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS %& Dze orZeku inuke ,0vkbZ0lh0Vh0bZ0 ds vuqlkj ukfer inuke orZeku osrueku ¼ :0 es ½ iqujhf{kr osrueku ¼ :0 es ½ 1- lgk;d izk/;kid O;k[;krk 2200&75&2800&100&4000 8000&275&13500 2- lgk;d izk/;kid ojh; osrueku O;k[;krk ojh; osrueku 3000&100&3500&125&5000 10000&325&15200 3- lgk;d izk/;kid izoj dksfV O;k[;krk izoj dksfV 3700&125&4950&150&5700 12000&420&18300 4- lg&izk/;kid ¼ jhMj ½ lgk;d izk/;kid ¼ lh/kh fu;qfDr@es/kk izksUufr 01-03-1989 ½ rd dSfj;j ,MokUlesaV ;kstuk ds rgr dze'k% fu;qDr ,oa izksUur 3700&125&4950&150&5700 12000&420&18300 5- izk/;kid izk/;kid ¼ lh/kh fu;qfDr 01-01-1996 ½ ls ykxw dSfj;j ,MokUlesaV ;kstuk ds rgr dze'k% fu;qDr ,oa izksUur 4500&150&5700&200&7300 16400&450&20900&500&22400 6- izkpk;Z izkpk;Z 4500&150&5700&200&7300 fo'ks"k :0 100@& 16400&450&20900&500&22400 3-1- laoxZ lajpuk] fu;qfDr dh izfdz;k] vgZrk] izksUufr] izksRlkgu ,oa vU; lsok 'krsZa vkfn ds laca/k esa foKku ,oa izkoSf/kdh foHkkx }kjk vyx ls vkns'k fuxZr fd, tk,axsaA 4- ftu f'k{kdksa dk fu;fefrdj.k vFkok lkeatu ljdkjh lsok@fo'ofo|ky; lsok esa ugha gqvk gS oSls f'k{kdksa dks rRdky iqujhf{kr osrueku vuqekU; ugha gksxkA lsok fu;fefrdj.k vFkok lkeatu ds i'pkr~ gh mUgsa fu;fefrdj.k vFkok lkeatu ds i'pkr~ gh mUgsa fu;fefrdj.k@lkeatu dh frfFk vFkok fnukad 01-01-1996] tks ckn esa gks] ls iqujhf{kr osrueku ns; gksxkA 5- fnukad 05-01-1979 ds iwoZ fu;qDr ,oa lEizfr jktdh; iksfyVsfDud laLFkkvksa esa dk;Zjr f'k{kdksa dks osru fu/kkZj.k fnukad 01-01-1996 dks fd;k tk,sxk fdUrq cdk;k osrukfn dk Hkqxrku vU; jkT; dfeZ;ksa ds HkkWafr fnukad 01-04-1997 ds izHkko ls fd;k tk;sxkA fnukad 01-01-1996 ls 31-03-1997 rd ds fy, dksbZ cdk;k vuqekU; ugha gksxkA ijUrq oSls f'k{kd tks fnukad 01-01-1996 dks NqV~Vh ij Fks vFkok fuyafcr Fks mudk osru NqV~Vh ls ykSVus vFkok fuyacu lekfIr dh frfFk ls fd;k tk;sxkA iqujhf{kr osrueku esa osru dk fu/kkZj.k layXu vuqyXud&1 ds vuqlkj fd;k tk;sxkA 6- fnukad 01-01-1996 ds izHkko ls osru fu/kkZj.k esa ek= mDr frfFk ds iwoZ vf[ky Hkkjrh; rduhdh f'k{kk ifj"kn~ }kjk vuq'kkflr izksUufr ;kstukvksa esa feyh izksUufr dh gh ekU;rk nh tk;sxhA dkyc) ,oa jkT; izk;ksftr izksUufr ;kstuk ds rgr izksUur f'k{kdksa dks iqujhf{kr osrueku bl vk/kkj ij fn;k tk;sxk ekuksa mUgsa jkT; izk;ksftr@dkyc) izksUufr ;kstukvksa esa izksUufr feyh gh u gks vFkkZr mudk osru fu/kkZj.k mudh ewy dksfV ds iqujhf{kr osrueku esa fd;k tk;sxkA fnukad 01-01-1996 ds izHkko ls dkyc) ,oa jkT; izk;ksftr izksUufr ;kstuk lekIr le>h tk;sxhA 7- fnukad 01-01-1996 ds iwoZ ds fdlh frfFk ls tks f'k{kd vf[ky Hkkjrh; rduhdh f'k{kk ifj"kn~@fo'ofo|ky; vuqnku vk;ksx }kjk vuq'kkflr es/kk izksUufr ;kstuk rFkk dSfj;j ,MokalesaV ;kstuk ds vUrxZr izksUufr dh ik=rk j[krsa gSa] mUgsa mDr ;kstukvksa esa lkeaftr dj izksUufr dk ykHk nsrs gq, lqlaxr iqujhf{kr osrueku esa fnukad 01-01-1996 ds izHkko ls osru fu/kkZj.k fd;k tk;sxkA 8- mi;qZDr dafMdk&10 esa vafdr jhfr ls lkeatu ds QyLo:i fdlh f'k{kd dks osru en esa gq, vf/kd Hkqxrku dh u rks olwyh dh tk;sxh vkSj u gh cdk;s dk Hkqxrku fd;k tk;sxkA 9- ;fn viqujhf{kr osrueku esa ifjyfC/k;kWaa iqujhf{kr osrueku ds mPpre izdze ls vf/kd gks tkrh gS rks oSlh n'kk esa iqujhf{kr osrueku ds mPpre izdze ij osru fu/kkZj.k fd;k tk;sxk rFkk vUrj dh jkf'k dks gkzkleu oS;fDrd osru ds :i esa Lohd`r fd;k tk;sxkA fdUrq] bl oS;fDrd osru dh x.kuk vU; ykHkkFkZ ugha dh tk;sxhA 10- fnukad 05-01-1979 ds iwoZ jktdh; iksfyVsDfud laLFkkuksa esa fu;qDr ,oa lEizfr dk;Zjr f'k{kdksa dks egaxkbZ HkRrk] edku fdjk;k HkRrk] ifjogu HkRrkiqujhf{kr osrueku esa osru ,oa vU; vuqekU; HkRrkfn bl ladYi ds fuxZr gksus okys ekg ls izkjaHk gksxkA fdUrq cdk;k osru ,oa HkRrkfn dk Hkqxrku mi;qDr dafMdk&5 ds vuqlkj ns; gksxkA 11- vf[ky Hkkjrh; rduhdh f'k{kk ifj"kn~ ¼,0vkbZ0lh0Vh0bZ0½ }kjk vuq'kkflr rFkk Hkkjr ljdkj ds ekuo lalk/ku fodkl ea=ky; }kjk Lohd`r fnukad 01-01-1996 ls izHkkoh iqujhf{kr osrueku lfgr lEiw.kZ iSdst ds v/khu vc dSfj;j ,MokalesUV ;kstuk esa gh izksUufr vuqekU; j[kh tk;sxhA 12- fnukad 01-01-1996 ,oa vkns'k fuxZr gksus ds chp lsokfuo`Rr f'k{kdksa dk osru iqujh{k.k mi;qZDr dafMdkvksa esa fufgr izfdz;k ,oa 'krksZa ds v/khu fd;k tk;sxkA 13- osru iqujh{k.k ds QyLo:i iqujhf{kr osru ij Hkfo"; fuf/k ys[kk esa fofgr nj ij va'knku dh dVkSrh ds i'pkr~ 'ks"k cdk;s jkf'k dk gh Hkqxrku fd;k tk;sxkA 16- fnukad 05-01-1979 ds iwoZ fu;qDr ,oa jktdh; iksfyVsDfud laLFkkvksa esa dk;Zjr f'k{kdks dks ;g fodYi fn;k tk;sxk fd ;fn os pkgsa rks viqujhf{kr osrueku esa gh cus jgsa fdUrq ml rjg fn;k x;k dksbZ fodYi ckn esa ifjofrZr ugha fd;k tk ldsxk lacaf/kr f'k{kdksa }kjk layXu izi= vuqlwph& II esa bl vk'k; dk fodYi vf/klwpuk ds fuxZr dh frfFk ls uCcs 90 fnuksa ds vUnj dh vfuok;Z :i ls nsuk gksxkA tks f'k{kd bl vof/k esa viuk fodYi fyf[kr :i ls ugha nsaxs muds laca/k esa ;g eku fy;k tk;sxk fd os u;s osrueku esa jgsaxsaA vkns'k%& vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd bl ladYi dks fcgkj jkti= ds vlk/kkj.k vad esa izdkf'kr fd;k tk;s rFkk bldh izfr;kWa lHkh foHkkx@lHkh foHkkxk/;{k ,oa egkys[kkdkj ¼ys0 ,oa g0½] fcgkj] iVuk dks izsf"kr dh tk,A fcgkj jkT;iky ds vkns'k ls ¼jkgqy flag½ ljdkj ds la;qDr lfpo foRr foHkkx] fcgkj] iVuk** 13. Simultaneously, the Government Notification dated 09-10-2006 (Annexure - 23) is also necessary to be quoted herein below :- **fcgkj ljdkj foRr foHkkx izs"kd] lqfuy dqekj flag mi&lfpoA lsok esa] egkys[kkdkj fcgkj] ohjpUn iVsy iFk] iVukA fo"k;%& ekuuh; iVuk mPp U;k;ky; }kjk lh0MCyw0ts0lh0 la0 13575@2003 ujflag Bkdqj ,oa vU; cuke fcgkj jkT; ,oa vU; rFkk ,y0ih0,0 la0& 500@2002 esa ikfjr U;k;kns'k ds vuqikyukFkZ foRr foHkkx ds ladYi la0&6736 fo0 ¼2½ fnukad 04-09-2003 esa la'kks/ku ds laca/k esaA egk'k;] mi;qZDr fo"k; ds laca/k esa funs'kkuqlkj dguk gS fd izk0fo0 ds vf/kuLFk jktdh; iksfyVsdfud laLFkkuksa esa fnukad 05-01-1979 ds iwoZ fu;qDr f'k{kdksa ds fy, vkf[ky Hkkjrh; rduhdh f'k{kk ifj"kn }kjk vuq'kkflr ,oa Hkkjr ljdkj ds ekuo lalk/ku fodkl ea=ky; }kjk Lohd`r iqujhf{kr osrueku 01-01-1996 ds izHkko ls foRr foHkkx ds ladYi la0 6736 fo0 ¼2½ fnukad 04-09-2003 }kjk lalwfpr gS ftlds }kjk ;g Hkh fu.kZ; fy;k x;k Fkk fd jkT; izk;ksftr@dkyc) izksUufr ;kstukUrxZr izksUur f'k{kdksa dk osru iqujh{k.k muds }kjk /kkfjr ewy dksfV ds in ds iqujhf{kr osrueku esa fd;k tk;sxk rFkk mUgsa es/kk izksUufr ;kstuk ,oa dSfj;j ,MHkkUlesaV ;kstuk ds rgr lek;ksftr fd;k tk;sxkA dkykarj esa lacaf/kr f'k{kdksa ds }kjk ekuuh; iVuk mPp U;k;ky; esa lh0MCyw0ts0lh0 la0 13575@2003 nk;j dh xbZ ftls ekuuh; iVuk mPp U;k;ky; us fnukad 29-09-2005 dks ,y0ih0,0 la0&500@2002 esa fnukad 23-08-2005 dks ikfjr U;k; fu.kZ; ds vuq:i fu"ikfnr fd;k gSA mi;qZDr of.kZr ;kfpdk@,y0ih0,0 esa ikfjr vkns'k ds vuqikyu esa jkT; ljdkj ds }kjk lE;d~ fopkjksijkUr foRr foHkkx ds ladYi la0&6736 fo@2 fnukad 04-09-2003 dh dafMdk 6] 7 rFkk 8 dks foyksfir djus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gSA QyLo:i jkT; izk;ksftr izksUufr ;kstuk@dkyc) izksUufr ;kstuk ds vUrxZr izksUur f'k{kdksa dks Hkh es/kk izksUufr ;kstuk ds vUrxZr izksUur f'k{kdksa dh Hkkafr fnukad 01-03-1989 rd tks izksUufr gqbZ gS ;k ns; gS mls dk;r j[krs gq, 01-01-1996 ds izHkko ls iqujhf{kr osrueku ,oa vU; foRrh; ykHk vuqekU; gksxsaA fo'oklHkktu ¼lquhy dqekj flag½ ljdkj ds mi&lfpoA** 14. On examination of aforesaid two State Govt. Notifications, it is evident that those Notifications were primarily relating to those persons, who were granted time bound/personal promotion. Certain benefits, which were given in relation to time bound/personal promotion that was initially effected by Annexure - 20 to the writ petition i.e. Resolution dated 04-09-2003. On examination of aforesaid two State Govt. Notifications, it is evident that those Notifications were primarily relating to those persons, who were granted time bound/personal promotion. Certain benefits, which were given in relation to time bound/personal promotion that was initially effected by Annexure - 20 to the writ petition i.e. Resolution dated 04-09-2003. Thereafter, certain aggrieved persons filed writ petition as well as appeal and thereafter, in view of order passed by the L.P.A. court in L.P.A. No. 500 of 2002, vide Notification dated 09-10-2006, conditions incorporating in Clause - 6, 7 and 8 of Government Resolution dated 04-09-2003 (Annexure - 20) was withdrawn. It is admitted case of the petitioner that petitioner was never granted time bound/personal promotion and as such, the petitioner's case was not at all required to be guided by Notification dated 09-10-2006 (Annexure - 23 to the writ petition), but surprisingly, while making prayer for withdrawal of the appeal i.e. L.P.A. No.1239 of 2005, submission was made on behalf of the appellant (petitioner) that appellant may take recourse to law in case he would be aggrieved by the Notification dated 09-10-2006. Since, on perusal of Notification dated 09-10-2006, whereby certain condition of Government Resolution dated 04-09-2003 was withdrawn, it is difficult to comprehend as to how the petitioner was aggrieved with Notification dated 09-10-2006. Meaning thereby that such Notification was not having any bearing with the case of the petitioner. In sum and substance, the Court is of the opinion that once the petitioner has raised claim, which has been raised in the present writ petition before this Court by filing a writ petition i.e. C.W.J.C. No. 3580 of 2002 and the writ petition was dismissed by a reasoned order, as has been indicated in preceding paragraphs of this order as well as withdrawal of the appeal filed by the petitioner i.e. L.P.A. No. 1239 of 2005, there is no reason for this Court to again examine the same issue, which has already been set at rest and as such, the Court is in agreement with the submission of learned counsel for the State that the present writ petition is barred by principle of res judicata. 15. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.