- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE appellant is aggrieved against the order dated 4th April, 2011 by which the writ petition preferred by the Respondent No. 3 was allowed on the ground that the notification issued by tile State of Bihar dated 26.10.2009 granting retrospective promotion to Respondent No. 6 in the writ petition, was held to be without jurisdiction as the Respondent No. 6 was holding the post of Additional Director (Mines) under the State of Jharkhand though initially he was holding the post under the State of Bihar but that was before creation of the State of Jharkhand. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that on earlier occasion even the State of Jharkhand accepted the decision of the State of Bihar in the matter of promotion and in the case of the appellant ' the State of Jharkhand has shown its inability to pass any order because of the reason that initial appointment of the appellant was under the services of tile State of Bihar and therefore the learned Single Judge has committed error of law by allowing the writ petition.
(3.) WE have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and the reasons given in the impugned order dated 4.4.2011. The learned Single Judge has already considered the earlier judgments though detailed discussions are not there in the impugned order with respect to the ratio of the decision but that obviously because of the reason that facts were very clear and in the facts of the case the judgments relied upon by the respondent No. 6 in the writ petition could not have been applied.;