IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16151 of 2006 BISHWNATH SINGH S/O LATE MATUKDHARI SINGH, R/O VILLAGE BAKHTARI, P.S. KARPI, DISTRICT ARWAL. …………………Petitioner. VERSUS. 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2.ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, BIRCHAND PATEL PATH, ‘R’ BLOCK, PATNA. 3.DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 4.DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, JEHANABAD. ………………………Respondents. For the petitioner: Mr. Sheopujan Singh. For the State: Mr. Sourendra Pandey, Adv, A.C to S.C 23. For the Accountant General: Ranjan Kumar. 05/ 25.07.2011 Having regard to the fact that the solitary grievance of the petitioner for issuance of a direction for being given the benefit of second time bound promotion is based on a misconceived premise in total ignorance of the Government resolution dated 18.12.1989 abolishing the very concept of time bound promotion for the teachers in view of adopting of the Central pay scale, this Court would find no merit in this application. Admittedly, the petitioner was granted time bound promotion on 01.04.1981 when such scheme was invogue but after the Finance Department in its resolution 2 dated 18.12.1989 had revised the pay scale of the teachers of the taken over schools w.e.f. 01.01.1986, it had specifically done away with the concept of time bound promotion by providing inter alia:- “The existing facility of time bound promotion and selection grade discussed in paragraphs 10 and 11 of F.D. Resolution no. 10770, dated 30th December 1981 shall cease to be applicable from 1st March, 1989 onwards in the existing pay scales and shall not be applicable at all for the purpose of pay fixation in Revised scales with effect from 1st January, 1986. The suppertime selection grade now being introduced for other Government employees shall not be applicable to these teachers. Such promotions, however, if due before 1st March, 1989 shall be given and payment in the existing scale made only upto 28th Februrary, 1989 after which the promotion would be deemed to have been terminated.” In view of the above, as the petitioner would complete his 25 years of service required for grant of second time bound promotion only on 13.01.1993, he would not be eligible for grant of such time bound promotion as the same has been specifically abolished w.e.f. 01.03.1989. That being so, this Court will 3 have no option but to hold that this writ application is wholly misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)