IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1534 of 2003 LEELA SRIVASTAVA w/o Jai Prakash Narayan Srivastava resident of village Bhagwat parsa, P. S. Phulwaria , District- Gopalganj at present posted as Assistant Teacher Dubey Batarhna Primary School, P. S. Phulwaria, District- Gopalganj… Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Director Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. District Superintendent of Education, Gopalganj, Bihar. 4. Area Education Officer, Gopalganj, Bihar. 5. Satya Narayan Prasad, Head Master Middle School, Dhobawalya Block, Manjhi P. S.Manjhi, District- Gopalganj… Respondents. ----------- 4. 26.07.2010 No one appears for the petitioner. Counsel for the State is present. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition reads as follows:- “1. That this is an application for issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus, order or orders, direction or directions commanding the respondent to promote the petitioner with effect from 18.12.86 in place of 12.6.96 as appointment Pannel was made on 18.12.96 and the petitioner appointed on 24.2.1987 but one Satya Narayan Prasad who was Junior teacher than the petitioner appointed in August 1987 promoted with effect from 18.12.1986 in B. Sc. Scale and petitioner remained as it is since then.” Counsel for the State with reference to the aforementioned prayer would submit that since the date 2 of appointment of the petitioner was 24.2.1987, the petitioner cannot claim promotion with effect from 18.12.1986. In this context, he has invited attention of this Court to the statements made in paragraph 7 and 8 of the counter affidavit which reads as follows; “7. That it is stated that 32 teachers who were promoted in B. Sc. Trained scale pursuant to the decision of the District Education Establishment Committee dated 12.9.96 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) have been posted in different Middle School in the light of the order of the District Magistrate-cum- Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee dated 6.9.2004, the deponent vide memo no. 409 dated 25.9.2004 wherein the name of the petitioner figures at Serial No. 7. It is clearly stated in the said order dated 25.9.2004, that financial benefit will be given from the date of issuance of letter of Promotion and from 18.6.96 to the date of issuance of letter of Promotion benefit of Pay Protection will be given. 8. That with regard to the averments made in paragraph no.6 to 10 under reply, it is stated and submitted that said Satya Narayan Prasad and Several others were granted promotion w.e.f. 18.12.86 pursuant to the direction of this Hon’ble Court passed in CWJC No. 1286/93 and other similar cases vide order dated 16.3.94. The case of this petitioner is not on same and similar footing.” Counsel for the State would submit that when 3 there is no denial to such averment made in the counter affidavit on behalf of the petitioner though a copy whereof was served on the counsel for the petitioner on 17.5.2006, the fact mentioned be deemed to have been admitted. In the opinion of this Court, counsel for the State seems to be correct inasmuch as the petitioner cannot claim promotion from the date on which she was not even appointed in service. Thus, for the reasons indicated in the counter-affidavit the case of the petitioner must be and is hereby rejected. That being so, this writ petition, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed accordingly. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)