IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1866 of 2010 In (CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE 8391/2003) 1. Ramdeo Rajak S/O Late Kusum Lal Rajak R/O Vill.- Sonaili, P.S.- Kadw,A Distt.- Katihar, Th Then Ssistant Teacher And Incharge Head Master, Middle School, Fatehpur Block, Balrampur, Distt.- Katihar 2. Yugal Kishore Roy S/O Sri Umesh Choudhary R/O Vill. And P.O. And P.S.- Azamnagar, Distt.- Katihar The Then Assistant Teacher, Middle School, Balrampur, Distt.- Katihar 3. Baidya Nath Ray @ Baidya Nath Roy S/O Sri Bhola Nath Ray @ Bhola Nath Roy R/O Vill.- Bhag Barsoi, P.O. & P.S.- Barsoi, Distt.- Katihar, The Then Assistant Teacher, Primary School, Dongul, Balrampur Block, Distt.- Katihar Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner & Secretary Department Of Human Resources Development, Primary Education, New Secretariat, Patna. 2. The Director, Primary Education Govt. Of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 3. The Regional Deputy Director Of Education, Purnea Division, Purnea. 4. The District Magistrate, Katihar. 5. The District Development Commissioner, Katihar. 6. The District Education Officer, Katihar. 7. The District Superintendent Of Education, Katihar Cum Secretary District Education Establishment Committee, Katihar. 8. The District Welfare Officer, Katihar. 9. The District Education Establishment Committee, Katihar Through Its Secretary, The District Superintendent Of Education, Katihar. 10. The Deputy Inspectress Of Schools, Katihar. 11. Dhirendra Paswan S/O Sri Hardhan Paswan R/O Vill.- Hahlaganj, P.O.- Sirnia, P.S. And Distt.- Katihar, The Then Incharge Assistant Headmster, Kamya Primary School, Kemhari, Kadwa, Distt.- Katihar ---------------------------------- 2 02. 04.08.2011 This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 13.09.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 8391 of 2003. The C.W.J.C. No. 8391 of 2003 was filed by the petitioners with a prayer to quash Annexure-1 to the writ petition, Annexure-1 is the order dated 30.06.2003 by which the representation of the petitioners has been rejected. From the perusal of Annexure-1 it appears that this Court disposed of C.W.J.C. No. 4092 of 1991 with the direction that the petitioners shall make a representation and same shall be decided and in compliance of the aforesaid order Annexure-1 has been passed. The grievance of the petitioners raised in the writ petition is that the petitioners were promoted from the post of teacher to the post of Head Master and by Annexures-7 & 8 to the writ petition promotion has wrongly been set aside and they have been reverted. We proceed to examine as to whether really the petitioners have been reverted and whether it is a 3 case of reversal which attract the application of the provision of Clause 2 of Article 311 of Constitution. From the order of promotion which is contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition it reveals that the promotion of the petitioner was make along with others on the basis of tentative seniority list in anticipation of approval and finalization of the seniority list by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Kosi Region, Saharsa. The para-2 of the promotion order reveals that it was a direct recruitment with a condition that in case of any alteration in the seniority list, the appointment of the petitioner shall be cancelled without any notice and the salary paid for the post of Headmaster shall be recovered. This promotion/appointment letter dated 20.10.1989 was issued by District Education Officer, Katihar. The said list of appointment was cancelled vide order dated 09.11.1989 and in compliance of the said cancellation order the District Education Officer, Katihar cancelled his own order dated 20.10.1989. Thus, the promotion itself was ad hoc in nature and conditional one which was canceled vide order dated 17th November 1989 by 4 the District Education Officer, Katihar. We, accordingly, hold that since the promotion was ad hoc in nature, therefore, it was not a case of reversal as provided under Clause-2 of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners aggrieved by the order dated 17th November 1989 filed C.W.J.C. No. 9793 of 1989, which was disposed of with a direction to decide validity of promotion though maintaining status quo which was ultimately decided against the petitioners by the District Education Committee so communicated vide Memo No. 9628 dated 29.12.1989 by Superintendent of Education. Then thereafter C.W.J.C. No.77/1990 was filed whereby the Memo No.3628 dated 29.12.1989 was quashed on the ground that the authorities concerned failed to abide with the direction given under C.W.J.C. No.9793 of 1989 as failed to conclude whether promotion was in accordance with law or not? Even then the authorities fell under same opacity for which, the petitioners have filed C.W.J.C. No. 4092 of 1991 on some other including aforesaid grounds again. This Court, while setting aside the 5 Annexure-12 directed to consider the sanity of gradation list and in compliance of the order of this Court, the matter has been decided by the impugned order contained in Annexure-1 to this writ petition. Again the learned Single Judge has directed to decide the matter in terms of the Full Bench decision reported in 2009(3) PLJR 384. Learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants submits that the ratio of the Full Bench is not attracted in the facts and circumstances of this case. We agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants for the reason that the petitioners’ appointment itself was ad hoc one and conditional. Therefore, no right accrued to the petitioners to hold the post of Headmaster substantively. By the impugned order in the writ petition it has been stated that the orders giving promotion to the petitioners and others in 1989 were not in accordance with the notification No. 2440 dated 18th December, 1984 by which the eligibility was prescribed for appointment on the post of Headmaster, candidate should be trained graduate and must have graduation 6 training certificate, while the petitioner was working in the inter trained/matric trained pay scale. From the narration of the facts above, this Court has given three opportunities to the petitioner for decision on his representation and all the representations of the petitioners have been rejected with one or other reason. Direction to decide the representation was discretion exercised in favour of the petitioners but this Court while disposing of earlier two writ petitions never interfered with the reversal order, i.e. reversal order is still in force and this Court rightly did not interfere with the reversal order as well as promotion order which was ad hoc in nature and conditional one. No substantive right was created to the petitioner; therefore, we feel that no useful purpose will be served again directing the State to decide the representation. Since it is not the case of the reversal as contemplated under Clause-2 of Article-311, therefore, the promotion was ad hoc one and conditional and survives only for less than one month. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the reversal order as well as the finding of the learned 7 Single Judge. In case after preparation of final list, petitioners’ names come in the seniority list, they shall be considered for regular promotion and if found suitable, they shall be given promotion. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. Mkr. ( Prakash Chandra Verma, J. ) (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.)