IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.250 of 2010 MAHESHWARI SHARMA S/O LATE BARHANDEO SHARMA R/O VILL- MADARA, P.S. ROH, DISTT. NAWADAH Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE SECRETARY PRIMARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CUM CHAIRMAN OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATION ESTABLISHMENT COMMITTEE NAWADAH 3. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION NAWADAH 4. DHEERENDRA KUMAR S/O NOT KNOWN HEADMASTER, M.S. OHARI, ROH, NAWADAH 5. BIJAY KUMAR S/O NOT KNOWN HEADMASTER, MIDDLE SCHOOL, GORA BIGHA, NAWADAH 6. RADHE LAL S/O NOT KNOWN HEADMASTER, MIDDLE SCHOOL, RAMPUR, GOVINDPUR, NAWADAH 7. TRIBHUWAN NATH VERMA S/O LATE KEDAR NATH VERMA HEADMASTER, MIDDLE SCHOOL, MANJOUR, NAWADAH 8. SURENDRA KUMAR S/O NOT KNOWN HEADMASTER, MIDDLE SCHOOL, RAJABIGHA, NAWADAH 9. MD. HUMAYUN KHAN S/O NOT KNOWN HEADMASTER, MIDDLE SCHOOL MANJHAWA, HASUA, NAWADAH 10. VIJAY PANDIT S/O JAGO PANDIT HEADMASTER, MIDDLE SCHOOL, ARUN, PAKARI BARAWAN, NAWADAH 11. RAJENDRA PRASAD S/O NOT KNOWN HEADMASTER, MIDDLE SCHOOL, BERAT, NARHAT, NAWADAH 12. RAJESHWAR PRASAD S/O NOT KNOWN HEADMASTER, MIDDLE SCHOOL, DHAMAURI, KAWAKOL, NAWADAH 13. NAND KISHORE PRASAD S/O NOT KNOWN HEADMASTER, MIDDLE SCHOOL, CISURA, PAKARIBARAWAN, NAWADAH 14. SHIVENDRA PRASAD S/O NOT KNOWN HEADMASTER, MIDDLE SCHOOL, APSAR NAPURA, KASHICHAK, NAWADAH 15. KRISHNA KUMAR VERMA S/O LATE BALDEO MAHTO HEADMASTER, MIDDLE SCHOOL, SAMHARI, NANDIGANJ, NAWADAH 16. CHANDRA BHUSHAN KUMAR SINHA S/O LATE ISHWAR DYAL HEADMASTER, MIDDLE SCHOOL, BHADOKHERA, NAWADAH 17. RANJAN KUMAR GHOSH S/O LATE KRISHNA MOHAN GHOSH HEADMASTER, MIDDLE SCHOOL, DUMARAWAN, PAKRIBARAWAN, NAWADAH 18. NARESH JHA S/O NOT KNOWN HEADMASTER, MIDDLE SCHOOL, POKSHI, PAKRIBARAWAN, NAWADAH 19. BISHESHWAR PRASAD YADAV S/O NOT KNOWN HEADMASTER, MIDDLE SCHOOL, BAGHOR, ROH, DISTT. NAWADAH ----------- 02/ 06.05.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel appearing for the State. - 2 - Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of District Superintendent of Education, Nawada, Respondent no. 3. Prayer of the petitioner is for a direction to the respondents to consider his claim of seniority, allow him the benefit of B.Sc. trained scale with effect from the date it is allowed to his juniors and also to give him promotion to the post of Head Master, w.e.f. the date the juniors have been promoted to the post of Head Master. Petitioner’s case is that he was appointed as B.Sc. untrained teacher against the sanctioned post of Intermediate trained teacher on 04.01.1977. After due permission he completed M.Sc. and acquired the qualification of M.Sc. in the year, 1995. Respondent nos. 4 to 19 were also appointed in the grade of I. Sc. trained teachers in between 1977 to 1982-83. The District Establishment Committee granted promotion to respondent nos. 4 to 19 and several other persons in the B.Sc. trained scale with effect from 28.12.1990 but petitioner, who is senior to the respondents, was not allowed this benefit. Counsel for the petitioner submits that since there - 3 - was no gradation list available at that time, as such he could not pursue his claim despite the fact that juniors were given promotion. Subsequently, the petitioner filed his representation before Respondent no. 3 objecting the promotion given to the private respondents in B.Sc. trained scale as it was allowed to them, ignoring the claim of the petitioner simply for the reason that they had acquired B.Sc. trained qualification prior to the petitioner. Petitioner’s case is that in the year, 1989 a general gradation list has been prepared in which the petitioner is shown senior to the private respondents. But ignoring his seniority the private respondents were given B.Sc. trained scale and as a consequence of that they were given promotion to the post of Head Master. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 3 seniority of the petitioner has been admitted, but it is stated that according to promotion Rule of 1993, a teacher is entitled to be placed in Grade-1 from the date when he obtains training certificate and after grant of Grade-1 a teacher is entitled for grant of promotion. Counsel for the petitioner in reply to this has stated - 4 - that promotion has been given to respondent nos. 4 to 19 by order dated 28.12.1990, at that time 1993 Rule has not come into force, as such on the basis of a Rule, which was framed subsequently, petitioner cannot be denied his promotion. I find that the issue relating to promotion in the B.Sc. trained scale, considering seniority of teachers has already been considered and decided by this Court in a reported decision 1992(2) PLJR 309 (Badri Narain Verma and anr Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.). In that case also length of service, seniority, is a deciding factor. For giving promotion the date of acquiring additional qualification as per 1993 Rule, cannot be made applicable, for giving promotion in the year, 1990. Considering these facts, the writ application is being disposed of, directing Respondents no. 2 and 3 to give promotion to the petitioner to the petitioner in B.Sc. trained scale and also allowed him to promotion to the post of Head Master, with effect from the dates, juniors have been allowed this benefits for promotion to the post of Head Master be also allowed, against the posts available during the period 28.12.1990 onwards. Orders, for granting - 5 - promotion in the B.Sc. trained scale as well as the promotion to the post of Head Master must be passed, within eight weeks from the date of communication/production of this order, allowing all consequential benefits to the petitioner. DKS/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)