IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.370 of 2006 RAM DEO PRASAD MAHTO, son of Shri Munilal Mandal, resident of village Kajha, P.O. Kajha, P.S. K. Nagar, District Purnea … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna 3. The District Superintendent of Education (D.S.E.), Purnea … Respondents ----------- 7. 23.6.2011 Having heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State this Court is of the considered opinion that the relief sought by the petitioner in this writ application to the following effect: “i) For a direction to respondents to give petitioner his second time bound promotion with effect from 1.4.1993 or fix his pay scale in terms of reference of fitment committee of Matric trained teacher Rs.5500- 9000. ii) For a direction to respondents to give petitioner the arrears of consequential benefits accruing after fixation of his salary in revised pay scale or second time bound promotion.” cannot be given to him, inasmuch as the petitioner having been appointed as an untrained teacher on 17.3.1961 was given the first promotion on the post of Matric trained teacher with effect from 20.9.1969 2 and also had earned his promotion in the Junior Selection Grade with effect from 1.4.1981 as is apparent from the recommendation made by the Area Education Officer, Banmankhi in his letter dated 8.3.2005, Annexures 5 series to this application. The moment this Court would come to the conclusion that the petitioner had earned two promotions it would not be difficult for this Court to hold that the petitioner would stand disqualified for earning any time bound promotion much less second time bound promotion in view of the Scheme of the Government as contained in Resolution No. 10770 dated 30.12.1981 which in very clear terms prohibits grant of time bound promotion to a person who has already been given regular promotion. Counsel for the petitioner, however, has placed reliance on a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jadu Nandan Singh @ Jadu Narain Singh vs. the State of Bihar & ors., reported in 2003(1) PLJR 167, to contend that for the purposes of time bound 3 promotion the first date of appointment has to be taken into consideration. In this context he has placed reliance on the Government circular dated 6.3.1990 quoted in the judgment of Jadu Nandan Singh (supra). In the considered opinion of this Court the circular dated 6.3.1990 will not be applicable in the case of the petitioner, inasmuch as he had remained in the same cadre of teacher and had earned his promotion from one category to another as per prevalent cadre rules. It has to be noted that prior to 1.1.1986 there was a post of Matric untrained teacher from which promotion could be made on the post of Matric trained teacher. Therefore, the petitioner cannot ignore the first promotion earned by him in the year 1969 on the post of Matric trained teacher. Once this aspect becomes clear that the petitioner had earned two regular promotions his claim for time bound promotion has to be rejected, inasmuch as the scheme itself does not permit such time bound promotion. As a matter of fact the facts of the case of Jadu Nandan Singh (supra) is 4 entirely different, inasmuch as he was appointed in the year 1947 as a Middle pass candidate and had not earned any promotion as is clear from the factual narration recorded in the judgment. It was in this context that the Division Bench had held that since he was earned no promotion he would be entitled for reckoning his seniority from the first date of appointment for the purposes of granting him two time bound promotions. The facts of the present case is just converse. Here the petitioner entered in service as a matric untrained teacher and having passed training examination was thereafter given his first promotion on the post of matric trained teacher. Again the petitioner was given yet another regular promotion with effect from 1.4.1981 on Junior Selection Grade post of teacher and therefore, the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of first or second time bound promotion. It is also recorded here that the counsel for the petitioner had himself conceded that the petitioner would not be entitled for regular promotion and to that 5 extent the following statement of the respondents in the second supplementary counter affidavit reading as follows: “7. That it is humbly submitted that after implementation of the central pay scale on 1.1.1986 petitioner was granted senior scale with effect from 1.1.1986 and as per the provision of Bihar Rajkiyakrit Prarambhik Vidyalaya Shikshak Pronnati Niyamawali, 1993, the Kalawadhi of 18 years in pay scale of matric trained Grade 2 is required for promotion to the next higher scale. As per the rules Matric trained teachers who had been granted senior scale with effect from 1.1.1986 they are entitled to be promoted in higher scale in the year 2004 while petitioner has been superannuated from service on 31.1.2003. In this regard a letter bearing no. 747 dated 21.8.2010 was also sent by the D.S.E. to District Magistrate Purnea disposing the same claim raised before the Pension Adalat.” by itself would be sufficient that even a regular promotion could not become admissible to the petitioner on account of his not completing the period of 18 years. Counsel for the petitioner in fact fairly 6 submitted that as per Cadre Rules, 1993 the petitioner would not be eligible for regular promotion and in fact he had confined his consideration only for time bound promotion. As noted above, the time bound promotion to the petitioner would not be admissible and therefore, this Court will have no option but to hold that this application is wholly frivolous and must be dismissed. It is ordered accordingly. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/