IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.93 of 2006 SMT.RAJ NANDANI KUMARI W/o Shri Devendra Prasad Singh, resident of Village – Gandhi Nagar (Kali Bari), PO & PS Khagaria, District Khagaria ……Petitioner-Appellant Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Deputy Director, Secondary, Primary and Adult Education, Bihar, Patna 3. The District Magistrate, Khagaria 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Khagaria 5. The President, Savitri Kanya Madhya Vidyalaya –cum- Area Education Officer, Khagaria 6. The Secretary, Savitri Kanya Madhya Vidyalaya –cum- Block Education Extention Officer, Khagaria 7. Shri Anil Kumar Yadav S/o late Bhola Prasad Yadav, resident of Village Aguani (Dumaria), PO & PS Parbatta,Distt. Khagaria 8. The Secretary of the Adhoc Committee, Savitri Kanya Madhya Vidyalala, Khagaria…….Respondents-Respondents ----------- For the Appellants : Mr. Bindhyachal Singh For the State : Mr.Nand Kumar Singh Assistant Counsel to AAG XI For Respondent no.7 : Mr. Sanjay Kumar No.1 ------------ 10- 16.12.2009 This appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature of Patna has been preferred by the petitioner of CWJC No. 13480 of 2000 (Smt. Raj Nandani Kumari vs. State of Bihar & Ors.), and raises a grievance with respect to the order dated 21.12.2005, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed. It raises question of promotion of respondent no.7 to the post of Headmaster of Savitri Girls Middle School, Khagaria, to the exclusion of the petitioner. 2. According to the writ petition, the petitioner claims to have been appointed as Assistant Teacher in a privately-managed school on 11.2.75. His services as such were confirmed with effect from 27.1.84, vide letter no.1640 dated 2 4.8.87 (Annexure 2). She claims to have acquired the degree of Sahitya Alankar from Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar, on 3.3.86. She was promoted as Headmistress on 1.7.87 (Annexure 4). She was given B.A.trained scale of Rs.880-1510/- with effect from 1.7.87, vide order dated 5.7.90 (Annexure 3). By order dated 15.3.2000 (Annexure 9), respondent no.7 has been appointed to the post of Headmaster, Savitri Girls Middle School, and impugned herein. 3. The petitioner challenged the promotion of respondent no.7 by preferring CWJC No. 13480 of 2000, which has been dismissed by the order dated 21.12.2005, wherein it has been held that respondent no.7 was senior to the petitioner, has been enjoying higher pay scale, and is more competent than the petitioner. While expressing grievance about the order of learned single Judge, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 11.2.75 and, therefore, ranks senior to respondent no.7, who joined on 15.6.95. The order of the learned single Judge, in his submission, is obviously erroneous. 4. Learned counsel for respondent no.7 has on the other hand submitted that he was appointed on a higher pay scale, with graduate trained scale, and is in every respect senior to the petitioner. 5. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It 3 appears to us that the petitioner’s service as Assistant Teacher was recognized with effect from 27.1.84, vide order dated 4.8.87 (Annexure 2). It further appears that though the Managing Committee had recommended her case for Matric trained scale, but there is no material on record to suggest that the recommendation was approved by the Directorate of the Government of Bihar, let alone the question of getting B.A. trained scale. On the other hand, respondent no.7 was appointed on 10.6.95, as Assistant Teacher with Graduate trained scale of Rs.1200-2040/-. It further appears that the Managing Committee had considered the cases of the eligible persons posted in the school including the petitioner and respondent no.7. They came to the conclusion that, apart from the position that respondent no.7 had initially joined with B.Sc. trained scale, respondent no.7 is more competent also. In that view of the matter, we are convinced that the learned single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. We entirely agree with the order. 6. The appeal is dismissed. ( S K Katriar ) ( Kishore K Mandal ) mrl