IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1333 of 2004 1. RAMDEO MANDAL, son of late Janak Mandal, Assistant Teacher, High School, Kalyanpur, PS Kalyanpur, District- Samastipur, resident of village Sagarpur, PS Sakri, District- Madhubani. 2. Maheshwar Singh, son of late Laxmi Narain Singh, assistant Teacher, High School, Jitwaria, PS Kalyanpur, District- Samastipur, resident of village Thahar, PS Khajauli, District Madhubani. … Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Regional Dy. Director of Education, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga. 4. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. 5. The District Education Officer, Samastipur. … Respondents. ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh, Sr. Adv. :Mr. Raj Kumar Singh. For the State : Mr. A. Amanullah, G. A. 9. --------- 3. 29.10.2010 Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State in respect of the following relief:- “1. That this is an application for issuance of appropriate writ(s) for quashing the order of the Regional Dy. Director of Education, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga, respondent no. 3 vide memo no. 1485, dated 27.8.2001 and the order issued by the Accountant General’s office endorsed in the service book of petitioner no.2, by which the Regional Dy. Director of Education has shifted the date of grant of Ist time bound promotion to petitioners from 1.4.1981 to 12.8.1982 and 31.10.1985 respectively i.e. counting ten years’ service not from the date of initial appointment of the petitioners, rather, from the date they were granted trained graduate scale. The respondents by the same order have further 2 directed to recover the excess amount paid to the petitioners from their salary. It is further prayed by the petitioners that after quashing of the aforesaid order, the respondents be directed to allow their Ist time bound promotion from 1.4.1981 counting their services from the date of their initial appointment i.e. 26.8.1970 and 11.5.66 respectively. The petitioners further pray for restraining the respondents from making recovery from the salary of petitioner as stated above.” as also taking into account that the petitioners were appointed prior to 18.9.1972 and the issue in hand stands settled by the judgment of this Court in the case of Bharat Prasad Chourasia vs. State of Bihar & Ors., and its analogous cases reported in 2002 (1)PLJR 329, this Court will have no difficulty in allowing this writ application exactly in the same terms in which the aforesaid batch case was allowed with the observations and directions in paragraph 18, 19, and 20 of the said judgment reading as follows; “18. To my mind this leaves no room for doubt that the dates with effect from which the petitioners were given promotion were completely in accordance with the direction contained in this letter. 19. Furthermore it is to be noted that all the petitioners having been appointed prior to 18.9.1972 are now at the end of their career and at this stage it will be quite unfair, unreasonable and inequitable to turn back and say that time 3 bound promotions granted to them were irregular, to fix much later dates for their promotion and on that basis to recover from them the differential amounts. 20. For the reasons discussed above, I am unable to uphold the impugned orders in all the writ petitions excepting CWJC No. 9791 of 2001. The orders coming under challenge in these writ petitions are accordingly set aside.” The reliance placed by learned counsel for the State to the facts of CWJC No. 9719 of 2001 in the same judgment seems to be wholly misplaced inasmuch as the learned single Judge in paragraph 21 of the judgment had found the case distinguishable by recording as follows; “21. Coming now to CWJC No.9719 of 2001, the position appears to be quite different in so far as the single petitioner to that case is concerned. And this is for the simple reason that he was appointed as an Assistant teacher after 18.9.1972. The basic facts concerning the petitioner in CWJC No. 9719 of 2001 are simple and can be stated as follows. He was appointed as an Assistant teacher in a nationalized high school on 1.5.1973. At that time he was simply a graduate and was accordingly given the graduate untrained scale of pay. He obtained the qualification of teachers’ training on 9.6.1980 and was allowed the higher graduate trained scale of pay from that date. He was later given the first time bound promotion (vide order dated 29.8.1991) w.e.f. 1.5.1983, that is to say, after ten years from the date of his appointment.” 4 In that view of the matter it becomes clear that this Court had formed two different classes, one for such teachers who had been appointed prior to 18.9.1972 and the other after 18.9.1972. The date of 18.9.1972 was found to be relevant in the context of qualification of training becoming compulsory for appointment on the post of teachers in High Schools. That being so, this writ application is allowed in the same terms as in the case of Bharat Prasad Chaurasia (supra). kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)