IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10362 of 2009 1. Damodar Sah 2. Jyoti Kumar Verma 3. Shyam Sunder Prasad 4. Bimal Paswan Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ---------------------------------- For the Petitioners: Mr. Mukeshwar Dayal, Advocate with Mr.Vikash Mohan, Advocate For the State : Mr. S.Raza Ahmad A.A.G. 9 with Mr. Vishwambhar Prasad, AC to A.A.G. 9 ---------- 2. 22.11.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Advocate General 9 on behalf of the State. In view of the submissions made in the reply filed on behalf of Respondent no. 3 to the supplementary affidavit of the petitioners leave is sought and granted to implead the Director (Secondary Education) as party respondent during course of the day. No fresh notice need issue as the learned Additional Advocate General 9 represents the newly added respondent also. A supplementary affidavit is stated to have been filed on behalf of the petitioners on 14.11.2011 after serving copies on the Counsel for the State but which is not on record. The office shall trace the same and place it on record. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 11.5.2009 denying to compute their earlier period of temporary service for the purpose of ACP. Apart from the writ petition several supplementary affidavits have been filed by the petitioners. Likewise the State apart from the counter affidavit has filed several additional affidavits. The fair stand taken by 2 the Additional Advocate General 9 obviates the need of detailed consideration of the facts of the matter. Suffice it to note that by order dated 2.9.23011 passed by the Director (Secondary Education) the period of temporary service of petitioner no. 2 has been directed to be taken into consideration for determination of seniority pursuant to the absorption in regular service by order dated 16.7.2009. It stands to reason that if the period of temporary service was being reckoned for substantive seniority, there appears no logic in law for not taking into consideration the same period of service for grant of ACP which is not a substantive promotion but an anti stagnation measure. Learned Additional Advocate General 9 invites attention of the Court to para 4 of the reply filed by the respondent no. 3 to the supplementary affidavit of the petitioners and submits that on 2.9.2011 appropriate seniority from the date of appointment after absorption has been granted to petitioner no. 2. In that light the matter is now required to be considered by the Director (Secondary Education) in so far as the remaining petitioners are concerned. Let such consideration be done by the Director and appropriate orders passed within a maximum period of eight weeks from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. It has to be borne in mind that all the four petitioners formed one class as tenure appointees under a scheme. No sub classification having no nexus with the rationale and the purpose and object to be achieved can be made amongst similarly situated to create a class within a class prohibited under Article 14 of the Constitution. The writ application stands disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.) 3