IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11889 of 2010 BHAGWAN PRASAD VERMA S/O SRI RAM SUBHAG LAL, R/O VILLAGE KELHUA, P.O.-SHANKARPUR, P.S. SINGHESHWAR, DISTRICT-SAHARSA. ……………Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION, BUDH MARG, PATNA. 3. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, KOSHI DIVISION, SAHARSA, P.O.+P.S.+ DISTRICT-SAHARSA. 4. THE D.O., P.O.+P.S.+ DISTRICT-SAHARSA. ……………Respondents ----------- 02 24.03.2011 Petitioner is a retired teacher, who has approached the High Court for a direction upon the respondent authorities to shift his selection grade from 01.12.2001 to 01.04.1993 on the basis of his so called qualification acquired by him. He submits that this benefit of senior selection grade must co-relate to the date of his qualification. Since the State has failed to accept his claim, therefore, the present writ came to be filed by him. The stand of the State emerges from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Regional Deputy Director, Education, Koshi Division. It has been stated that grant of senior selection grade is restricted 20% of the vacancy available in a year and based on seniority of the teachers as per the gradation list. Petitioner’s seniority stood at serial no. 216. This is with regard to the teachers working in the pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500 in the Koshi Division of Saharsa. Meeting of the committee relating to Saharsa under the chairmanship of the Divisional Commissioner was held and based on the seniority of the petitioner and the available vacancies to the 2 extent of 20% based on his seniority which accrued from 01.12.2001. Since vacancy and seniority are the two deciding factors, therefore, any claim made by the petitioner for shifting the date to the year 1993 is untenable. The matter was examined at the local level and the communication contained in Annexure-B read with the stand taken in the counter affidavit reiterates the position against the claim of the petitioner. Since grant of senior selection grade with a pay of Rs. 7500-12000 cannot be paid across the board, as a matter of course or routine to one and all but is regulated by the rules/circulars in this regard which limits it to 20% of the vacancy of the year and the seniority of the claimant/petitioner, there is no reason as to why the petitioner should be given the benefit of shifting the date to 01.04.1993 instead of 01.12.2001 by by-passing the seniors. No case for shifting the date is made out in the above stated circumstance. This writ application has no merit, it is dismissed. Safik (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)