IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8518 of 2006 ====================================================== Nand Jee Singh .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mrityunjay Kr.Tiwary For the Respondent/s : Mr. (Ga9) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILESH KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 4 05-08-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order vide memo No. 1039 dated 7.7.2003 as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ petition. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner was entitled to the pay scale of the B.A. Trained as also entitled for the post of Headmaster. On the other hand the learned counsel appearing that the State submits that the grievance so claimed by the petitioner is not correct. On perusal of the impugned order, it would appear that there were 236 teachers senior to the petitioner and some of the teachers were junior to the petitioner and they have also to be given promotion. Similar is the case of Ram Dev Singh and Chandrika Sharma and their cases has also been considered and it Patna High Court CWJC No.8518 of 2006 (4) dt.05-08-2013 2 was found that those two persons should have allowed Matric Trained scale much prior to the petitioner, as such, petitioner could not have valid grievance with regard to claim for grant of time bound promotion. The same has been considered in the impugned order. Considering the submissions of the parties and upon perusal thereof as well as the impugned order it would appear that the reasoned order has been passed . It has also been mentioned in the impugned order that there were 236 teachers senior to the petitioner and none of the teachers who were junior to the petitioner has been given the pay scale as claimed. The order is well considered and reasoned one as such. No interference is called for under Article 226 of the constitution of India. The writ petition is dismissed. Namita/- (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J)