JUDGMENT : Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. 1. The instant intra-court appeal, preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 18.12.2020 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.6691 of 2019 whereby and whereunder the decision taken by the authority as under order dated 31.12.2018 has been quashed and set aside by remitting the matter before the Respondent No.2 to consider the case of the petitioner afresh within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of the copy of the order considering that in view of notification dated 27.05.2004, the doctors of different departments have been provided promotion which has been contended in paragraph nos. 17, 18 and 19 of the writ petition and not rebutted by the respondents and there is no reason why the said documents will not apply in the case of the petitioner. 2. Brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ proceeding, which are required to be enumerated herein, read as under :- 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed on 26.06.1981 as Medical Officer and in the year 1984, the petitioner was posted as Tutor in Pharmacology Department in Darbhanga Medical College at the time of erstwhile State of Bihar. On 01.01.1985 the petitioner was transferred and posted as Tutor in Forensic Medicine in M.G.M. Medical College, Jamshedpur. While he was posted as such, the petitioner was given promotion on the post of Assistant Professor, Forensic Medicine with effect from 31.08.1988. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred and posted to R.M.C.H., Ranchi as Assistant Professor, Forensic Medicine, Ranchi. 4. It is the further case of the petitioner that as per M.C.I. Rules, the petitioner was given promotion on the post of Associate Professor, Forensic Medicines with effect from 31.08.1993. Further, after completion of 4 years as Associate Professor, an Associate Professor should be promoted on the next higher post as Professor after completion of 4 years as per M.C.I. Rules as well as Promotion Rules notified in the year 1990 and 1997. 5. The petitioner has completed 4 years on 31.08.1997 and was entitled to be promoted on the post of Professor with effect from that date. 5. The petitioner has completed 4 years on 31.08.1997 and was entitled to be promoted on the post of Professor with effect from that date. The Cadre Rules which was framed in the year 1997 also adopted the MCI Rules regarding promotion given to the higher post in which rendering four years’ service as Associate Professor was essential criteria for promotion to the post of Professor. Therefore, the petitioner should have been given promotion on 31.08.1997, but unfortunately, the petitioner was given promotion on the post of Professor in Forensic Medicine by Notification No. 102(2) dated 08.04.2004 but the said promotion was given with effect from 05.11.2003. 6. The petitioner represented before the respondent authorities by series of representations for rectifying the earlier order of promotion on the post of Professor by giving him promotion with effect from 31.08.1997 and not from 5.11.2003. 7. It is the further case of the writ petitioner that the State Government has given retrospective promotion to the various Associate Professors working in the different Medical Colleges under the State of Jharkhand from the date they have completed four years as Associate Professor, on the post of Professor. Accordingly, the same treatment should be given to the petitioner since vacancy was available in the year 1997. 8. The Department of Health vide Notification contained in Memo No. 137 (2) dated 27.05.2004 has rectified the number of sanctioned posts in RIMS/RMCH by modifying Annexure-A which also contains number of sanctioned post of teachers (doctors) in the RMCH/RIMS. While rectifying by aforesaid Notification, it has been stated that the correct number of sanctioned posts were not incorporated in Annexure-A, therefore, "Annexure-1" is being issued which will replace "Annexure-A" showing the correct number of sanctioned posts at the time of creation of RMCH (1960), which was converted to RIMS under the RIMS-Act, 2002. 9. From perusal of Notification dated 27.05.2004, it is evident that there was already three sanctioned posts of Professor in FMT at the time of establishment of the then RMCH but due to clerical error, the aforesaid three posts were not disclosed in the chart prepared, rather, only two posts of Professor in FMT was disclosed. Therefore, there was requirement for issuance of Notification dated 27.5.2004 and as per aforesaid notification, there are 03 sanctioned posts for Professor of FMT in RIMS. Therefore, there was requirement for issuance of Notification dated 27.5.2004 and as per aforesaid notification, there are 03 sanctioned posts for Professor of FMT in RIMS. As such, there is no impediment in giving promotion to the petitioner as Professor with effect from 31.08.1997. 10. The writ petitioner filed several representations/requests for shifting his date of promotion on the post of Professor with effect from 31.08.1997 but when his request was not acceded to, he was compelled to prefer writ petition before this Court being W.P. (S) No. 4078/2010. That writ petition was disposed of on 19.9.2018 by directing the petitioner to file representation annexing the relevant documents for his retrospective promotion to the post of Professor with effect from 31.08.1997 instead of 05.11.2003. The Governing Body of the RIMS has been directed to consider the claim of the petitioner and to pass a final order in accordance with extant the Rules and the Guidelines of the RIMS-Act and Rules, 2002 within a reasonable period more preferably within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the representation and pass an appropriate order. 11. Thereafter, the claim of the writ petitioner has been rejected vide order contained in Memo No. 385 (II) dated 31.12.2018 on the ground that in the year 1997 there was only one sanctioned post against which late Dr. K.P. Shrivastava was working. Therefore, the petitioner was rightly given retrospective promotion on the post of Professor, FMT with effect from 05.11.2003, against which writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 6691 of 2019 has been preferred which has been disposed of vide order dated 18.12.2020 whereby and whereunder the decision taken by the authority as under order dated 13.12.2018 has been quashed and set aside by remitting the matter before the Respondent No.2 to consider the case of the petitioner afresh. Against the aforesaid order passed in the writ petition, the State has preferred the instant appeal. 12. It appears from the factual aspect as referred hereinabove based upon the pleading that the writ petitioner was appointed on 26.06.1981 as Medical Officer. He was posted as Tutor sometime in the year 1984 in the Pharmacology Department in Darbhanga Medical College in the erstwhile State of Bihar. He was transferred and posted as Tutor in Forensic Medicine in M.G.M. Medical College, Jamshedpur on 01.01.1985. He was posted as Tutor sometime in the year 1984 in the Pharmacology Department in Darbhanga Medical College in the erstwhile State of Bihar. He was transferred and posted as Tutor in Forensic Medicine in M.G.M. Medical College, Jamshedpur on 01.01.1985. The writ petitioner was granted promotion on the post of Assistant Professor, Forensic Medicine with effect from 31.08.1988. He, working from one post to other, was finally promoted to the post of Professor with effect from 05.11.2003, while the writ petitioner claims to be promoted with effect from 31.08.1997. The aforesaid grievance having not been redressed, the writ petitioner preferred writ petition being W.P.(C) No.6691 of 2019. 13. The ground has been agitated before the learned writ court that even though the post was available as on 31.08.1997 but the promotion to the post of Professor in Forensic Medicine and Toxicology (FMT) Department has been denied to be given from 31.08.1997, rather, it has been granted from 05.11.2003. 14. The writ petitioner has relied upon the Government notification dated 27.05.2004 wherein three posts were available on the day when the Rajendra Medical College and Hospital, Ranchi (Now RIMS) was established. As such, the post even if was available on 31.08.1997 of Professor under the FMT Department, but for no fault of the writ petitioner he has been denied the said promotion with effect from 31.08.1997 and has been granted with effect from 05.11.2003. 15. The State as also the RIMS, has denied the aforesaid contention and submitted before the learned writ court that there was only one vacancy as on 31.08.1997. As such, the writ petitioner was not granted promotion to the post of Professor. The post having fallen vacant only on 05.11.2003, hence, promotion to the said post was granted. 16. The learned Single Judge has appreciated the rival submissions and by putting reliance upon Government notification dated 27.05.2004, the impugned decision negating the promotion with effect from 31.08.1997 has been quashed and set aside by remitting the matter back before the Respondent No.2 to take decision afresh in view of notification dated 27.05.2004, which is the subject matter of the instant appeal. 17. Mr. 17. Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned Additional Advocate General-II, appearing for the appellant State of Jharkhand, has submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the very fact that the only one post in the Forensic Medicine and Toxicology Department (FMT) was available as would appear from the details furnished to that effect dated 13.10.1995 under the seal and signature of the Principal, Rajendra Medical College and Hospital, Ranchi. Hence, there cannot be any promotion if one post was already filled up as on 31.08.1997. But this aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the impugned judgment suffers from an error. 18. Per contra, Mr. Rajendra Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-writ petitioner, has submitted that the so called communication dated 13.10.1995 was not placed before the learned writ court and, as such, there is no question of consideration of the aforesaid letter. Further, the same cannot be said to be valid, since, the same has not been issued by the competent State authority, who is the master of creation of post, rather, the same is by the Principal of Rajendra Medical College and Hospital. Hence, the same cannot be relied upon. 19. It has been submitted that here the decision of the State is to be looked into which is the basis of the claim of the writ petitioner, i.e., 27.05.2004 whereby and whereunder it has been stipulated that the details of the post faculty wise, as per Annexure-A, appears to be wrongly issued and, as such, the same is to be replaced by Annexure-1. 20. It has been submitted that as per Annexure-A to the Government notification dated 27.05.2004, the post of Professor in FMT Department is two (02). However, the aforesaid number of posts in the FMT Department has been rectified as three (03) by virtue of Annexure-1 and for that purpose the Government has come out with the notification dated 27.05.2004. 21. 20. It has been submitted that as per Annexure-A to the Government notification dated 27.05.2004, the post of Professor in FMT Department is two (02). However, the aforesaid number of posts in the FMT Department has been rectified as three (03) by virtue of Annexure-1 and for that purpose the Government has come out with the notification dated 27.05.2004. 21. The contention, therefore, has been made that the very basis of the claim of the writ petitioner for granting promotion as Professor in the FMT is the Government notification dated 27.05.2004 wherein the State Government is admitting the fact that on the date of establishment of the R.M.C.H., as per the guideline of the Medical Council of India, the details of the teaching post was issued as per Annexure-A. But after verification of certain documents and on verification of the recommendation of the Medical Council of India, it was found that certain discrepancy, due to inadvertence, has been crept up and, as such, Annexure-A has been replaced by Annexure-1 wherein the FMT is having three (03) posts. 22. Learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner, on the aforesaid premise, has submitted that the said notification itself clarifies that the number of posts of Professor in FMT is more than one as on 31.08.1997, hence, there was no reason to deny the promotion with effect from 31.08.1997. 23. The learned Single Judge, on consideration of the aforesaid aspect of the matter, has considered the decision taken by the authority to be erroneous and accordingly quashed and set it aside. Therefore, the impugned order suffers from no error and hence, the instant appeal if fit to be dismissed. 24. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 25. The undisputed fact in this case is that the writ petitioner is claiming his promotion as Professor with effect from 31.08.1997, however, he has been granted promotion with effect from 05.11.2003. The basis of claiming promotion as Professor, FMT with effect from 31.08.1997 is the notification dated 27.05.2004 issued by the State of Jharkhand. While the State of Jharkhand is disputing the same basing reliance upon a communication dated 30.10.1995 issued by the Principal, R.M.C.H. as has been brought on record in this memo of appeal. 26. The basis of claiming promotion as Professor, FMT with effect from 31.08.1997 is the notification dated 27.05.2004 issued by the State of Jharkhand. While the State of Jharkhand is disputing the same basing reliance upon a communication dated 30.10.1995 issued by the Principal, R.M.C.H. as has been brought on record in this memo of appeal. 26. The question which requires to be considered herein is that – Whether the Government notification issued in the name of the Governor of the State is to be relied by the court of law or a tabular chart of the posts or by making reference of the post by the Principal of the college is to be given reliance? 27. The law is well settled that any medical college is to be established only after clearance by the Medical Council of India. It is the Medical Council of India, who after thorough enquiry/inspection is to give clearance for establishment of a medical college or hospital depending upon the requirement. Herein also, the Medical Council of India has given clearance for creation of certain posts Faculty wise vide notification dated 27.05.2004 issued in the name of the Governor of the State through the Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare Department, Government of Jharkhand (Health, Education and Research). 28. It would be evident from the aforesaid notification which contains the reference of notification No.101(2) dated 08.04.2004 by which the Rajendra Institute of Medical Science, formerly known as the Rajendra Medical College and Hospital, Ranchi, was having the details of the created teaching posts as per the parameter of the Medical Council of India, as contained under Annexure-A. 29. 28. It would be evident from the aforesaid notification which contains the reference of notification No.101(2) dated 08.04.2004 by which the Rajendra Institute of Medical Science, formerly known as the Rajendra Medical College and Hospital, Ranchi, was having the details of the created teaching posts as per the parameter of the Medical Council of India, as contained under Annexure-A. 29. But, subsequently on the basis of the verification of the documents, the details of the created teaching posts have been found to have wrong reference under Annexure-A, therefore, Annexure-A was superseded by Annexure-1 by virtue of notification dated 27.05.2004 which will be treated to be part of the notification no.101(2) dated 08.04.2004, for ready reference the content of the said notification is being referred hereunder as :- >kj[k.M ljdkj LokLFk; fpfdRlk f'k{kk ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k foHkkx fpfdRlk f'k{kk ,oa 'kks/k la ŒlaŒ&2@LFkk&3&19@04137¼2½@LokŒ jkWph fnuakd 27@5@04 vf/klwpuk bl foHkkx ds vf/klwpuk la[;k & 101¼2½ fnukad 08-04-2004 }kjk jktsUnz vk;qfoKku laLFkku] jkWph iwoZorhZ jktsUnz fpfdRlk egkfo|ky; vLirky jkWph dh LFkkiuk ds le; Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn }kjk fu/kkZfjr ekinaM ds vuqlkj l`ftr 'kS{kf.kd inksa dh fooj.kh ,usDpj , }kjk fuxZr dh xbZ FkhA ckn esa miyC/k dkxtkrksa ls ik;k x;k fd Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn }kjk dkykUrj esa LukrdksŸkj fMXkzh ,oa fMIyksek dkslZ ds fy, Lohd`r 'kS{kf.kd in fyfidh; Hkwyo'k blesa lekfgr ugha fd;k tk ldk gSAa vr% ,usDpj ^^,^^ dks foyksfir djrs gq, mlds LFkku ij ,usDpj ^^1^^ dks izfrLFkkfir fd;k tkrk gSA ;gh ,usDpj ^^1 fuxZr vf/klwpuk 101 ¼2½ fnukad 08-04-2004 dk Hkkx ekuk tk;sxkA >kj[k.M jkT;iky ds vkns'k ls gŒ@& 26@5@2004 ¼izse izdk'k 'kekZ½ ljdkj ds lfpo 30. It appears from Annexure-A that the number of post of Professor in the FMT Department has been shown to be two (02). But after its substitution by Annexure-1, the number of posts under FMT Department has been shown to be three (03). 31. The whole claim of the writ petitioner is based upon the Government notification dated 27.05.2004 and same is the basis of interfering with the impugned decision by which the claim of the writ petitioner was denied for promotion from 31.08.1997 by the impugned order dated 31.12.2018 passed by the Administrative Authority. 32. 31. The whole claim of the writ petitioner is based upon the Government notification dated 27.05.2004 and same is the basis of interfering with the impugned decision by which the claim of the writ petitioner was denied for promotion from 31.08.1997 by the impugned order dated 31.12.2018 passed by the Administrative Authority. 32. It appears from the pleading made that the contention regarding the notification dated 27.05.2004 has not been disputed that on the basis of notification dated 27.05.2004 the doctors of the different departments have been provided promotion which has subsequently been pleaded in paragraph 17, 18 and 19 of the writ petition. Even though comprehensive counter affidavit was filed before the writ court but the said statement was not rebutted. The said admitted fact is also the basis of passing the order by the learned Single Judge as would appear from the ultimate paragraph of the impugned judgment. 33. The State has filed the appeal even though the fact about granting promotion on the basis of the Government notification dated 27.05.2004 so far as the different departments are concerned, have not been disputed. The specific pleading to that effect has been made in paragraph 17, 18 and 19 of the writ petition but herein the claim of the writ petitioner is contested. 34. So far as the non-rebuttal of the specific pleading regarding promotion having been granted as Professor in the different departments has been admitted is concerned, the same, according to our considered view, cannot be disputed since, it is based upon the conscious decision taken by the State as would appear from notification dated 27.05.2004 issued in the name of the Governor of the State. Once the notification has been issued by the State in the name of the Governor, there is no question to have objection by the State itself. Such objection could have been taken if the State would have come out with any decision in supersession to the decision already taken by virtue of notification dated 27.05.2004 but it is not the case herein. 35. Such objection could have been taken if the State would have come out with any decision in supersession to the decision already taken by virtue of notification dated 27.05.2004 but it is not the case herein. 35. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, has tried to impress upon the Court by filing a document which was not available before the writ court, i.e., the details of the post given by the Principal of the Rajendra Medical College and Hospital dated 13.10.1995 wherein the details of the post has been shown to be one (01) under the FMT Department. 36. But the question herein would be :- (i) What is the admissibility of the said detail of the post furnished by the Principal of the said college? (ii) Can the said detail will prevail upon the decision taken by the State Government dated 27.05.2004? (iii) Is it available to the State to question their own decision regarding the creation of post based upon the parameter fixed by the Medical Council of India? 37. This Court is of the view that once the decision has been taken by State dated 27.05.2004, which is the basis of passing the order by learned Single Judge, it is not available for the State to question its own decision but even then the said decision is being questioned by the State itself. 38. This Court is having impression that filing of this appeal is for the ulterior motive for the reason as referred hereinabove and only for the purpose of misuse of the judicial proceeding, which this Court deprecates. 39. This Court, in view of the aforesaid reason, is of the view that the claim of the writ petitioner has been directed to be considered by interfering with the impugned decision by the learned Single Judge based upon the notification dated 27.05.2004 issued by the State Government and the post of Professors have been filled up in the other departments of the RIMS, there is no reason to come to the conclusion that the learned Single Judge has decided the claim by showing interference in the impugned order, has committed any error. 40. Accordingly and based upon the reasons referred hereinabove, this Court is of the view that the State has failed to make out a case even for filing the instant appeal. 41. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed. 42. 40. Accordingly and based upon the reasons referred hereinabove, this Court is of the view that the State has failed to make out a case even for filing the instant appeal. 41. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed. 42. Consequently, I.A. No.710 of 2021 also stands dismissed.