IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9794 of 2001 AWADHESH SINGH, S/O DAYALI SINGH, R/O VILLAGE- ROTWAN, P.S.-NOKHA (BAGHAILA), DISTRICT-ROHTAS. ……………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE DIRECTOR (PRIMARY EDUCATION), HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT EDUCATION ESTABLISHMENT COMMITTEE, THROUGH THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ROHTAS AT SASARAM. 5. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, ROHTAS AT SASARAM. 6. SHRI SHIV SHANKAR SINGH, S/O NAME NOT KNOW TO THE PETITONER, ASSISTANT TEACHER (SCIENCE) IN MIDDLE SCHOOL, DHARUPUR, P.S.-BIKRAMGANJ, DISTRICT-ROHTAS, THROUGH THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, ROHTAS AT SASARAM. 7. SHRI SHIV PUJAN TIWARY, S/O NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, ASSISTANT TEACHER (SCIENCE) IN MIDDLE SCHOOL, SHIV SAGAR; THROUGH THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION ROHTAS AT SASARAM. 8. SRI VIDYA SAGAR SINGH, S/O NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, ASSITANT TEACHER (SCIENCE) IN MIDDLE SCHOOL, MURADABAD, THROUGH THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, ROHTAS AT SASARAM. 9. SRI DINA NATH SAH, S/O NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, ASSISTANT TEACHER (SCIENCE) IN MIDDLE SCHOOL, PATARHI, THROUGH THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, ROHTAS AT SASARTAM. 10. SRI RAJ KISHORE MISHRA, S/O NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, ASSISTANT TEACHER (SCIENCE) IN MIDDLE SCHOOL, NOKHA, P.S.-NOKHA, DISTRICT- ROHTAS, THROUGH THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, ROHTAS AT SASARAM. 11. SRI KRISHAN MURARI PRASAD, S/O NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, ASSISTANT TEACHER (SCIENCE) IN MIDDLE SCHOOL, PIPRAKHURD, P.S.- KARGAHAR, DISTRICT-ROHTAS, THROUGH THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, ROHTAS AT SASARAM. 12. SRI NIWAS PANDEY, S/O NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, ASSISTANT TEACHER (SCIENCE) IN MIDDLE SCHOL, MEYARI BAZAR, P.S.-NOKHA, DISTRICT-ROHTAS, THROUGH THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, ROHTAS AT SASARAM. 13. SRI GIRISH NANDAN PANDEY, S/O NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, ASSISTANT TEACHER (SCIENCE) IN MIDDLE SCHOOL, DEHARI, P.S.- DEHARI, DISTRICT ROHTAS THROUGH THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, ROHTAS AT SASARAM. - 2 - ……………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 4 30.06.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. In this writ application the prayer of the petitioner is confined to grant of B.Sc. Trained Scale and consequent promotion to the post of Headmaster from the dates his juniors were granted the same. The juniors to the petitioners have been made respondent nos. 6 to 13. In the counter affidavit filed by the State, there is no denial that respondent nos. 6 to 13 are juniors to the petitioner. The only stand taken by the respondents in the counter affidavit relevant for the purpose of this case is that the issue as to whether there should be separate gradation list of the two stream of teachers, i.e. of science and arts, is pending before the Full Bench of this Court and, therefore, it has been pleaded that the claim of the petitioner shall be decided after the issue is resolved by the Full Bench. Now it is being informed to this Court that the Full Bench has decided the issue and has held that separate gradation list of the two stream of teachers has to be prepared up to the Grade-IV i.e. up to the - 3 - grade of Graduate Trained Scale and thereafter a common gradation list has to be prepared of Grade- V and Grade-VI teachers i.e. Trained Graduate Senior Scale and Trained Graduate Selection Grade Scale for giving opportunity to the teachers for promotion to the post of Headmaster. Learned counsel for the State submits that now the final gradation list shall be prepared in accordance with the directions of the Full Bench and the case of the petitioner shall be considered and if the petitioner’s name finds mention in the gradation list and is found senior enough and qualified for grant of B.Sc. Trained Scale and consequent promotion as Headmaster, he shall be granted the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in reply, submits that this is a clear cut case for grant of parity in the matter of grant of Graduate Trained Scale and promotion to the post of Headmaster which has been granted to his juniors, namely, respondent nos. 6 to 13. He submits that respondent nos. 6 to 13 were granted B.Sc. Trained Scale with effect from 26.1.1989 and were promoted to the post of Headmaster with effect from 1.4.1995. He submits that they are still - 4 - continuing as such. He further submits that there is no denial of the fact that the petitioner is senior to them on the very basis of merit list and he continues as senior to these persons. It goes without saying that for the purposes of grant of B.Sc. Trained Scale seniority has to be taken into account. Therefore, if the petitioner is in a position to establish that he is senior to respondent nos. 6 to 13, he is surely entitled for consideration for grant of B.Sc. Trained Scale from the date they were granted the same i.e. with effect from 26.1.1989. This matter has necessarily to be examined by the respondents. In case the petitioner is found senior to those persons and entitle for grant of B.Sc. Trained Scale from the date they were granted, he is also entitled for consideration for promotion to the post of Headmaster, if he is found qualified, from the date his juniors were granted such promotion. Therefore, this Court directs the respondent no. 2, the Director, Primary Education to consider the case of the petitioner vis-a-vis the case of the respondent nos. 6 to 13 for grant of B.Sc. Trained Scale and consequent promotion to - 5 - the post of Headmaster. If the respondent, after due enquiry and after hearing the petitioner, if necessary, finds that the respondent nos. 6 to 13 were juniors to the petitioner and they have been granted the B.Sc. Trained Scale and promotion to the post of Headmaster and are availing the benefits as such, shall pass similar orders in respect of the petitioner also. Necessary enquiry in this respect shall be completed and order shall be passed preferably within a period of four months. In case any claim of the petitioner is denied, speaking order in this respect shall be passed by the respondent no. 2 assigning specific reasons with supporting facts and relevant documents for denial of the claim of the petitioner and a copy thereof shall be served on the petitioner within the same period. The writ application is accordingly disposed of with above directions. Arvind/ (J. N. Singh, J.)