Letters Patent Appeal No.1107 OF 2000 ***** Against the order dated 28.6.2000, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, in C.W.J.C. No.4679 of 1998. ***** 1. Bhagwan Mandal, S/o Late Karku Mandal, resident of village and P.O. Raghonagar Bolia, Distt. Katihar. 2. Rabindra Nath Saha, S/o Late Brij Mohan Sah, resident of village- Baghchhala, P.O. Dhenbalea Chhala, District- Katihar. 3. Gopal Prasad Chaudhary, S/o Sri Dharmeswar Pd. Chaudhary, resident of village- Baldiabari, P.O. Manihari, District- Katihar. 4. Mewa Lal Yadav, S/o Late Parmesar Pd. Yadav, resident of village- Mirchapore, P.O.- T.M. Baghar District- Katihar. 5. Mahadeo Pd. Sharma, S/o Late Dinbandhu Sharma, resident of village & P.O. Katihar, Distt- Katihar. 6. Amrendra Kr. Takur, S/o Late Bucho Thakur, resident of village and P.O. Dighari, Distt. Katihar. 7. Dhrub Kr. Jha, S/o Sri Ugrasen Jha, resident of village- Chakrami, P.S. Balaha, Distt- Katihar. ...... Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Divisional Commissioner, Purnea Division, Purnea. 4. The District Magistrate, Katihar. 5. The District Superintendent of Education, Katihar. 6. Ashok Kr. Jha, S/o Not known, Assistant Science Teacher, Kolharia Barari Middle School, Distt.- Katihar. 7. Abdul Matin, S/o Not known, Assistant Science Teacher, Maheshpur Middle School, Korha, District- Katihar. 8. Anant Narain Yadav, S/o not known, Assistt. Science teacher, Nagarpalika Middle School, Katihar, District- Katihar. 9. Manzoor Alam, S/o not known, Assistant Science Teacher, Pabna Sauli Middle School, Kelba, Distt. Katihar. 10. Dilip Kumar, S/o not known, Assistt. Teacher, Middle School, Karhagola, Barari, Distt. Katihar. 2 11. Satish Kumar, S/o not known, Assistt. Science Teacher, Middle School, Barari, District- Katihar. 12. Bhawanand Jha, S/o not known, Assistt. Science Teacher, Middle School, Bairia, Amdabad, Distt.- Katiha. 13. Sabal Kishore Jha, S/o not known, Assistt. Science Teacher, Middle School, M.P. Katihar. 14. Shankar Sah, S/o not known, Assistt. Science Teacher, Middle School, Baghali, Katihar. 15. Arun Kumar, S/o not known, Assistt. Science Teacher, Middle School, Kharuhua, Jameera, Barsoi, Distt- Katihar. 16. Om Prakash Thakur, S/o not known, Assistt. Science Teacher, Middle School, Parasar Bidya Peeth, Nagarpalika, Katihar. ....... Respondents ***** For the Appellants: Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Baidyanath Prasad, Advocate. For the S t a t e: Mr. Braj Kishore Pd. Sinha, G.P.3 with Mr. Surya Kant Kumar, A.C. to G.P.3. For private respondents: Mr. S.K. Ranjan, Advocate. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR KATRIAR THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ***** S K Katriar & J.Saran, JJ. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna has been preferred by the petitioners of C.W.J.C. No.4679 of 1998 (Bhagwan Mandal and others Vs. State of Bihar and others), and are aggrieved by the order dated 28.6.2000, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed on the sole 3 ground that a similar case bearing C.W.J.C. No.5596 of 1998 (Brahmdeo Prasad Sah and others v. State of Bihar and others) was rejected by order dated 19.5.2000. 2. A brief summary of facts essential for the disposal of the appeal may be indicated. It has a chequered history. The appellants and respondent nos.6 to 16 were appointed in between 1974 and 1976, on stipendiary basis as Assistant Teacher in Science under special employment scheme of the Bihar Government. At the time of commencement of such engagement, the appellants were Science Graduates, and respondent nos.6 to 16 were holding the qualification of I.Sc. With the passage of time, respondent nos.6 to 16 became Science Graduates and acquired I.Sc. Training earlier than the appellants. In the early stages they were ex-cadre Assistant Teachers. After confirmation as teachers, they were taken into the cadre of teachers. By resolution dated 28.12.1987 (Annexure-4) decision was taken to promote the eligible candidates from the seniority list. By order dated 15.2.1988, respondent nos.6 to 16 were given the scale of B.Sc. Trained teachers to the exclusion of the appellants as per the departmental circular. The appellants challenged the same by preferring appeal before the learned 4 Commissioner of Purnea Division, who dismissed the appeal by his order dated 9.5.1998(Annexure-6). In the meantime, another set of similarly circumstanced persons as the present appellants preferred the said C.W.J.C. No.5596 of 1998, wherein the private respondents herein were arraigned as respondents there also. The learned Single Judge dismissed the same by his order dated 19.5.2000. On the heels of the same was filed the present C.W.J.C. 4679 of 1998, and was rejected by the impugned order on the sole ground that an identical writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No.5596 of 1998 had already been dismissed. Aggrieved by this order the present appellants preferred the present appeal which was rejected by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 14.8.2000, whereby the order of dismissal of C.W.J.C. No.4679 of 1998 on the ground of dismissal of previous writ petition was upheld by the said order dated 14.8.2000. 3. The appellants preferred civil appeal No.3739 of 2001 (arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.21314 of 2000 (Bhagwan Mandal and others Vs. State of Bihar and others), which was allowed by the Supreme Court by order dated 8.5.2001, whereby the said order dated 14.8.2000 passed on the present appeal was set aside, and the matter was 5 remitted back to this Court for a fresh decision in accordance with law and on merits. The order of the Supreme Court is reproduced hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference: “Special leave granted. The writ petition filed by the appellants was dismissed. On a letters patent appeal being filed, the same was dismissed by the High Court without going into the merits. The appeal was dismissed because of the earlier views accepted by the Single Judges of the said High Court. When there was a challenge to the decision of the Single Judge on merits, we are of the opinion that the letters patent appeal should have been disposed of on merits. Of course, it was open to the Division Bench to dismiss the letters patent appeal in limini, but that has not been done. There is no indication that the merits of the case were considered by the Division Bench. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the order of the Division Bench which will now hear L.P.A. No.1107 of 2000 afresh.” That is how the matter comes up before us for final disposal. 4. While assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the appellants submits that it is clear from a perusal of the seniority list that the appellants rank higher than respondent nos.6 to 16. He further submits that none of the private respondents figured in the 2nd merit list dated 1.10.1987 (Annexure-2). Therefore, denial of promotion to the appellants 6 is bad in law. They have to be promoted earlier than respondent nos.6 to 16. 5. Learned Government Pleader has supported the impugned action. Learned counsel for respondent nos.6 to 16 has also supported the impugned action. 6. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears to us on a perusal of the materials on record that respondent nos.6 to 16 became senior to the appellants for the reason that they acquired the degree of graduation after they had started working on stipendiary basis. Further more they became trained teachers earlier than the appellants and, therefore, rank senior to the appellants leading to their promotion. It further appears to us from the materials on record that the initial entry of service of respondent nos.6 to 16 was earlier than the appellants. We, therefore, find valid reasons for promotion of respondent nos.6 to 16. Furthermore these circumstances were taken into account by the learned Single Judge while rejecting the said C.W.J.C. No.5596 of 1998, which is an additional reason in dismissal of this appeal. For the sake of uniformity of approach, it must be emphasised that though different sets of petitioners had 7 approached this Court by preferring two different writ petitions, but the impugned order as well as the private respondents in both the writ petitions are the same. 7. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs. (S K Katriar, J.) (Jyoti Saran, J.) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated the 7th day of August, 2009 S.K.Pathak/ (N.A.F.R.)