LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 14 OF 2000 (Against the Judgment and Order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 10552 of 1998 on 3rd November, 1999) Sailja Devi & Another --Vrs.-- The State of Bihar & Others. ------ For the Appellants : Mr. Yogendra Mishra & Mr. Raghunath Kumar. For the State : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kr., S.C. 16 & Mr. J.K. Roy, J.C. to S.C. 16. --------- P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BARIN GHOSH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.N. SINGH J U D G M E N T Barin Ghosh & J.N. Singh, J.J. In 1995, the appellant approached this Court by filing a writ petition registered as C.W.J.C. No. 5797 of 1995. In that writ petition, as appears from the order dated 3rd December, 1996, disposing of the said writ petition, the appellant contended that in 1980, a gradation list was prepared whereby and under it was 2 accepted that the appellant is the senior most Assistant Teacher. It was his case that while despite being the senior most Assistant Teacher, his case was not considered for promotion to the post of Head Master of Middle Schools, a number of persons junior to him were promoted to the posts of Head Master in the year 1986. It was stated that there was no just reason not to consider his case for promotion. The State filed a counter affidavit to the said writ petition. In that, it was accepted that persons junior to the appellant have been promoted. With that, it was also stated that the persons, who were promoted in the year 1986 or earlier, their cases are being examined to ascertain as to whether promotions granted to them were wrongly granted or not. The State stated in the said counter affidavit that if the appellant files representation for consideration of his case for promotion, the same will be considered. In view of such stand having been taken, the said writ petition was disposed of by the order dated 3rd December, 1996 by directing the State to decide the claim of the appellant relating to promotion to the post of Head Master of Middle School in accordance with law. In view of such 3 direction, the case of the appellant was considered whereupon he was not promoted on the ground that in 1993 certain Rules were altered and by reason thereof in order to be appointed as a Head Master of Middle School, the candidate became obliged to be at least a post graduate, which the appellant was not. In view of such decision, the appellant came back to this Court once again by filing yet another writ petition registered as C.W.J.C. No. 10552 of 1998 wherein it was contended that since the appellant had acquired a right to be promoted prior to the change effected to the Rules and inasmuch as in terms of the Rules prevalent before the change thereto was effected, a graduate, as that of the appellant, could be appointed as Head Master of Middle Schools, the case of the appellant for promotion should be considered on the basis of such qualification. By the Judgment and Order under appeal, the said contention having been rejected, the appellant came before us. The appellant approached in the first writ petition referred to above for consideration of his case for promotion. The writ petition was allowed with a direction to consider the case of promotion of the 4 appellant. At the time the said order was passed, the appellant was not qualified to be promoted to the post of Head Master. Despite that, the appellant did not seek a direction of the Court to consider his case for promotion on the basis of Rules existing prior to the amendment. In the circumstances, the order obtained in the first writ petition itself sunk the appellant forever. In the second writ petition, the appellant had placed reliance upon a gradation list dated 12th May, 1988, which also indicated that the appellant is the senior most amongst Assistant Teachers. The appellant, however, could not bring on record that out of the said gradation list, anyone had been promoted to the post of Head Master prior to the change effected to the Rules, so as to contend that the date of his consideration for promotion should relate back to the date of consideration of the case of that other person, who had been promoted. In such situation, there had practically been nothing to do in the writ petition and accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed by the Judgment and Order under appeal. For the reasons indicated above, we have nothing further to add and there being no scope of 5 interference, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Patna High Court, 9th July, 2008 S.B.P./N.A.F.R. (Barin Ghosh, J.) (J.N. Singh, J.)