IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11108 of 2001 ARUN KUMAR AMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.1879 of 2002 RAJENDRA JHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- (In C.W.J.C. No. 1108 of 2001) For the Petitioner: Mr. Md. Khurshid Alam, Adv. For the State: Mr. Prabhat Kumar, AC to GA-2 (In C.W.J.C. No. 1879 of 2002) For the Petitioner: Mr. Amarnath Jha, Adv. For the State: Mr. R. K. Srivastava, AC to GP-4 ***** 12. 28.02.2011 Prayer of the petitioners in both the Writ Applications is for quashing of the gradation list, contained in Memo No. 171, dated 22.01.2001, whereby a final gradation list of Assistant Teachers, working in Deaf and Dumb Schools, being run by the Welfare Department, have been published. The grievance of the petitioner, Arun Kumar Amar, is that his position in the seniority list, prepared in the year 1999, has arbitrarily been changed from serial no. 1 to serial no. 9. The grievance of petitioner, Rajendra Jha, is that since he was appointed in the year 1980, as a trained Teacher and his year of training is 1978, as such he should have been treated senior to the Respondents, who have been shown senior to him in the gradation list. 2 Petitioner in the first Writ Application and the Respondent Nos. 6 to 13 in the first Writ Application, were working as Assistant Teacher at Shri Kameshwari Priya Poor Home Deaf and Dumb School, Darbhanga. This school was a non- government organization and taken over by the Government with all properties and assets and liabilities w.e.f. 02.02.1977. The date of take over of the school 02.02.1977 was considered to be the date of appointment of Teachers and Staffs, working in this school. When the school was taken over, the petitioners as well as Respondents were untrained, so vide letter no. 3575, dated 30.03.1979, it was instructed that untrained Teachers must get training within two years from the date of their appointment, otherwise their services may be terminated without any information. The Respondents, Vijay Kumar Singh, Chandeshwar Prasad Sing and some other Respondents got training within two years of their appointment, i.e., 02.02.1979. But, so far petitioner, Arun Kumar Amar is concerned, he remained untrained for 10 years and only got training in the year 1988-89. When the first provisional gradation list was prepared, the name of Arun Kumar Amar 3 was placed at serial no. 1 considering his seniority, prior to the taking over of the concerned school, but this was objected to by Chandeshwar Prasad Singh, as he got trained much earlier to the petitioner. Considering the objection invited after publication of the provisional gradation list, final gradation list was published, considering all aspects of the matter and objections filed by the concerned persons. In the final gradation list of Teachers of Deaf and Dumb Schools, published vide Memo No. 171, dated 22.01.2001, Vijay Kumar Singh and Chandeshwar Prasad Singh and others were placed above Arun Kumar Amar and he was placed at serial no. 9. So far Rajendera Jha in other Writ Application is concerned, he was much below in the gradation list, considering his date of entry in service in the year 1980. The simple question for consideration in both the Writ Applications is how the seniority of those Teaches should be reckoned, whether it is with effect from the date of their entry in service or the date on which they acquired the training. Along with the Writ Application as well as Counter Affidavit, circular of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms 4 Department, which is a guidelines for deciding seniority has been annexed. From this circular, it is apparent that the date of entry in the cadre will be relevant for deciding the seniority, in case appointments in a particular cadre is made from two sources, one by way of direct appointment and another by way of promotion. Persons, who are allowed to enter in the cadre by way of promotion they may be considered senior to those who are directly appointed. In the present case, petitioner as well as those Respondents, who have been placed above the petitioner, in the final gradation list their date of appointment is same, i.e., 02.02.1977, which is the date of taking over of the school. So far the petitioner in other Writ Application, Rajendra Jha, is concerned, his date of appointment as per Office Order No. 389, dated 25.04.1980, as such as per the Government Circular, his entry in service is much after the entry in service of the petitioner in the Writ Application and the Respondents. In this view of the matter, despite the fact that Rajendra Jha was appointed as a trained Teacher and he has acquired his training in the year 1978, he can not be treated senior to the writ petitioner as well as the 5 respondents in view of his entry in the service much after in the entry of service of these persons. So far petitioner, Arun Kumar Amar is concerned, his entry in the service as well as other Respondents, being same, the date of acquiring training becomes important, because unless those Teachers were trained they did not have requisite qualification for entering in the cadre of Assistant Teacher. The requisite qualification for becoming an Assistant Teacher was that they must be trained. Petitioner acquired that qualification in the year 1988-89. So for other Respondents are concerned they became trained within two years of the taking over of the school on 02.02.1977. Admittedly, the petitioner is not controverting this fact that he became trained, 10 years after the taking over of the school, but his claim of seniority is on the ground that even though he himself was eager to get admitted in the training college, but for the reason that some additional responsibilities were given to him, which he was discharging for this period, as such the Respondent authorities themselves were liable for not sending his name for training. The delay in acquiring training should not have been a reason for not recognizing 6 his seniority. For this purpose, the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision, reported in 1994 2 PLJR 30. The facts of this case are not identical to the facts of this case, since in that Writ Application, the date of appointment of the petitioner and the Respondents were different, but so far the present case is concerned, the date of appointment of the petitioner and the Respondents are concerned that is 02.02.1977. In the Counter Affidavit there is specific averment that except the first year 1979-80 for other years, the petitioner himself was reluctant in going for training. Whatever be the matter, since the petitioner acquired requisite qualification subsequent to other Respondents, for becoming eligible to be appointed as Assistant Teacher, his entry in the cadre of the trained Teacher will be reckoned later to other Respondents. I do not find any error in the impugned gradation list, dated 22.01.2001, contained in Annexure-12 to the first Writ Application. Accordingly, both the Writ Applications are dismissed. SKM (Mridula Mishra, J.)