JUDGMENT 1. Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, who was the General Secretary of the Range Forest Officers Association is present today, though he admits that he is not the General Secretary as on date. 2. In order to recapitulate the crux of this litigation, it would be better to quote the order dated 10.02.2020, which reads as under: Petitioner-Association had approached this Court with the following prayer: ''For the issuance of appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions or a writ in the nature of prohibition prohibiting the respondent authorities to act in furtherance to the resolution dated 28.09.2012 and analogous orders whereby and whereunder in complete violation of Article 320(3)(a) appointment to the civil post of Range Forest Officer is being done without the same being routed through the Public Service Commission and also in absence of any service condition/rules for promotion in tune with the recommendation of the Fitment Appellate Committee.'' Earlier the petitioner was appearing in person, but he is not present today. Vide order dated 7 th January 2016 learned Advocate of this Court Mr. Vaibhav Kumar was appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court in the matter. The petitioner was directed to furnish the entire pleadings to the learned Amicus Curiae and render all his instructions as were required. Thereafter, the matter has been adjourned on several dates. Today learned Amicus Curiae has produced a gazette notification dated 3 rd January 2019 of the Jharkhand Range Forest Officers Service (Recruitment, Promotion and other Service Conditions) Rules, 2018 dated 17 th December 2018. Learned Amicus Curiae submits that the instant Rule prescribes the terms and conditions for promotion. Direct recruitment to the post of Range Forest Officer is to be done by the J.P.S.C. Part-III contains provision relating to direct recruitment. Conditions for promotion are prescribed under Part-IV. In the opinion of learned Amicus Curiae, this takes care of the main prayer of the writ petitioner. Petitioner in person has been informed of this development. Any individual cause of action of the Members of the Association would otherwise be amenable in independent proceedings. The instant writ petition has, therefore, served its purpose. It can be disposed of. Since the petitioner in person is not present today, the matter is adjourned for two weeks to grant him one indulgence to put across, if there are any remaining grievances. Let the case appear on 28 th February 2020. The instant writ petition has, therefore, served its purpose. It can be disposed of. Since the petitioner in person is not present today, the matter is adjourned for two weeks to grant him one indulgence to put across, if there are any remaining grievances. Let the case appear on 28 th February 2020. However, no further adjournment would be granted.'' 3. At the outset learned Amicus Curiae has very fairly pointed out to this Court that the deponent of this writ petition Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, the then General Secretary of the Range Forest Officers Association has been apprised of the legal position during discussion with him. He submits that there is some area of doubt in his mind vis--vis individual cases of employees on the question of promotion without concurrence of the Public Service Commission. 4. Learned Amicus Curiae has placed the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Siraj Ahmad Vrs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1613 , which is on the subject on compliance of Article 320(3) of the Constitution of India regarding concurrence of the Commission. Para 10 of the report refers to the issued involved i.e., on the question of due consultation with the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission. At para 16 the Apex Court has observed on this issue the appointment of the appellant at the most can be termed as irregular and not illegal in absence of concurrence of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission. 5. That being the legal position and individual officers, if have grievance relating to promotion without compliance of the requirement of Article 320(3), may have individual cause of action. It would in itself be determinable on relevant material facts and details of the concerned employee if raised in an appropriate proceeding in accordance with law. This Court does not wish to comment upon that. The grievance of the Association stands addressed by framing of the Jharkhand Range Forest Officer Service (Recruitment, Promotion and other Service Conditions) Rules, 2018. Mr. Anil Kumar Singh has also addressed the Court and has not disputed the legal position. 6. In those circumstances, the writ petition has served its purpose and is accordingly disposed of. 7. The grievance of the Association stands addressed by framing of the Jharkhand Range Forest Officer Service (Recruitment, Promotion and other Service Conditions) Rules, 2018. Mr. Anil Kumar Singh has also addressed the Court and has not disputed the legal position. 6. In those circumstances, the writ petition has served its purpose and is accordingly disposed of. 7. Learned Amicus Curiae has very fairly stated that the amount of cost of Rs.5000/- awarded by order dated 12.04.2016 ordered to be paid to the amicus curiae would be better deposited in JHALSA for the purpose of legal services. He has submitted that prayer for exemption from payment of cost by the State through I.A. No. 2764 of 2016 is not proper. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent State has tried to press the instant interlocutory application for exemption from payment of cost of Rs.5000/-. However, this Court may make only reference to the orders dated 21.01.2016, 25.02.2016 and the order dated 17.03.2016 by which last indulgence was granted to the State to file comprehensive counter affidavit as several adjournment had been given. It was abundantly made clear that if counter affidavit is not filed within the aforesaid period respondent shall have to pay Rs. 5000/- to the learned Amicus Curiae. It appears that the instant I.A. contain a statement that there is no head for payment of such cost. However, the respondent Officers of the State realizing their mistake made correction in the supplementary affidavit filed thereafter on 06.05.2016 seeking unqualified apology for making statement at para 8 of the said I.A. to that effect. 9. In those circumstances, the statement made in the instant I.A. is ignored. However, the cost of Rs.5000/- should be deposited at JHALSA within a period of 2 weeks and receipt thereof should also be filed within the same period. If the receipt is not filed, office shall place the matter before this Bench soon thereafter. Instant I.A. stands rejected. Other pending I.A.s are closed.