IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8224 of 2004 Krishnadeo Paswan, son of Late Lalu Paswan, village Majgama, PS Pranpur, Dist. Katihar, posted as Headmaster in Lakhi Tola Middle School, Amdabad, District Katihar – Petitioner. Vs. (1) The State of Bihar, (2) Secretary, Education Department, Bihar, Patna. (3) Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna. (4) Dist. Magistrate, Katihar. (5) Dist. Supdt. Of Education, Katihar. (6) Treasury Officer, Katihar – Respondents. 4 10.12.2010 The petitioner was granted promotion subject to approval of the District Establishment Committee, on the post of Headmaster along with several other teachers vide memo no.2824, dated 20.10.1989 (Annexure 2). Subsequently the order of promotion was not approved by the District Establishment Committee and was cancelled. The petitioner and other similarly situated teachers moved this court on three occasion. Finally by judgment and order, dated 20.1.2000 passed in CWJC No. 4092/1991 (Annexure 4), the case of seventeen teachers was considered. The order challenged was issued vide memo no. 1466, dated 1.6.1991. From Annexure 4 it appears that the court upheld the gradation list as well as the promotion granted by the District Superintendent of Education, Katihar. After the order of this court as contained in Annexure 4, memo no. 5002, dated 30.12.2000 as contained in Annexure 6 was issued by which fifteen persons were given the benefit of being treated as the direct recruits to the post of Headmaster. The grievance of the petitioner is that although the petitioner was promoted to the post of Headmaster along with others vide Annexure 5 issued vide memo no. 3030, dated 1.10.1996, the 2 said promotion was given with effect from 13.7.1996 whereas others who were promoted vide memo no. 5002, dated 30.12.2000 were given promotion with effect from 20.10.1989. The State counsel submits that the promotion has rightly been granted from 1996 as the petitioner has not worked as Headmaster between 1989 to 1996. On the other hand, counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner cannot be allowed to suffer on the ground that he was wrongly / illegally deprived of his promotion, which is not the fault of the petitioner. In my opinion since the case of the petitioner is covered by Annexure 4, there cannot be a distinction between the ;persons who were granted promotion in pursuance of Annexure 4 and the case of the petitioner which stands on similar footing. If there is any distinction between the case of the petitioner and those who were promoted vide Annexure 6, the matter would have been different. However, no such distinction has been pointed out in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State. Considering the aforesaid aspect the petitioner should be granted the same relief as those who have been granted promotion as Headmaster vide memo no. 5002, dated 30.12.2000 as all the persons are covered who were granted promotion vide memo no. 2824, dated 20.10.1989 (Annexure 2). This writ petition is, thus, allowed. haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)