Order B.P. SINGH & B.P. SHARMA, JJ. The appellant has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment and order of a learned single Judge of this Court dismissing his writ petition being C.W.J.C. No.10403 of 1989 by his judgment and order dated 11th February, 1994. In the writ petition filed by him, the appellant claimed to be the senior-most teacher in Shri Ram Ratan Shahi High School, Bishunpur Jadopur, Gopalganj (hereinafter to be referred to as the' School') and prayed for quashing the orders contained in Annexure 6 and 10/A whereby respondent no.4 was appointed In-charge Head Master of the School and his pay was fixed accordingly. It appears that later when respondent no.4 was directed to work as permanent Head Master of the School, appellant moved this Court and by order dated 17th January 1990, an interim• order was passed by this Court to the effect that the appointment of respondent no.4 as Head Master shall not be made on permanent basis. The interim order was continued by order dated 5th March 1991, after notice to the respondent no. 4. Subsequently, by order dated 16th July 1992, it was clarified that in view of order of this Court dated 17th January 1990, respondent no.4 shall not be treated as the permanent Head Master of the School. 2. The real dispute is between the appellant and the respondent no.4. While the petitioner claims that having regard to 1is qualification and length of service, he is entitled to be considered and appointed Head Master of the School in the light of the relevant Govt. orders, respondent no.4 similarly contends that he being the senior most teacher was entitled to be considered for and appointed Head Master of the School. According to the appellant, the appointment of respondent no.4 as Head Master is contrary to the rule laid down in the Govt. order dated 20th, November, 1981 (Annexure-4) which was issued in exercise of powers conferred upon the Government under Section 15 of the Non-Government Secondary School (Management and Control) Ordinance, 1981. 3. According to the appellant, he possessed B.A. and M.A. degrees and was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the School in December, 1964. At the relevant time, he was untrained teacher, though he was subsequently trained in the year 1973. 3. According to the appellant, he possessed B.A. and M.A. degrees and was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the School in December, 1964. At the relevant time, he was untrained teacher, though he was subsequently trained in the year 1973. Respondent no.4 was also appointed as Assistant Teacher in the School on 9th November, 1964 and he possessed B.A. trained qualification. However, the services of the appellant as well as respondent no.4 were approved by the Government with effect from 1st January 1965. It is the case of the appellant that since he had post graduate qualification he ranked senior to respondent no.4 who was only a graduate, though he was trained. Reliance was placed on Annexures-1 and 3/A which were issued in the years 1965 and 1967 and it was submitted that applying those Government orders, it should have been held that the appellant was senior to respondent no.4. In fact, his case is that at all times the appellant was treated as senior to respondent no.4. Reference is made to the Divisional Gradation List (Annexure-2), the district wise Gradation List (Annexure-2/A) and to the seniority List of the teachers in the School in question (Annexure-2/B)--all prepared in the year 1983. The appellant was appointed to the Selection Grade on 1st April 1979. On the other hand, respondent no.4 was granted Selection Grade scale with effect from 2nd October 1980. This is borne out by Annexure-2, the Office Order dated 20th August 1985. The assertion of the appellant in this regard has not been controverted by the respondents. 4. It appears that the Head Master of the school ought to have superannuated on 1 st October 1980 but on the basis of a forged birth certificate, he continued in service till the 2nd July 1982. When this fact was discovered, he was immediately removed from the post and directions were issued to recover from the erstwhile Head tl4aster the pay and allowances which he had received for the period subsequent to 1st October 1980. 5. It is not disputed before us, nor it was disputed before the learned Judge, that if the post of Head Master fell vacant on or before 1st October 1980, it had to be filled up from amongst the teachers of the School in question. 5. It is not disputed before us, nor it was disputed before the learned Judge, that if the post of Head Master fell vacant on or before 1st October 1980, it had to be filled up from amongst the teachers of the School in question. However, if any vacancy arose after 1st October 1980, the vacancy had to be filled up oh the basis of Seniority List prepared State wise. This is also apparent from the Government Order dated 2nd July 1983(Annexure-3). 6. The writ petition has been decided by the learned Judge on the basis that the vacancy arose on the 1st October 1980 and, therefore, it had to be filled up from amongst the eligible teachers of the School in accordance with the rules. Before us also, this position was not disputed and all the parties have, therefore, advanced submissions before us on the basis of Annexure-4 dated 20th November 1981 which prescribes the method of appointment of a Head Master laying down the requisite eligibility conditions etc. 7. The real question which arises for consideration is not the question of seniority inter se between the petitioner and respondent no.4. The services of both were approved with effect from 1st January 1965 by the Government and, therefore, in one sense, both were appointed on the same day. An argument was advanced before the learned Judge that there was a break in service of appellant, inasmuch as he left the School on 31st March 1967 and again joined the School on 31st December 1968. Considering the break in service, the learned Judge thought that respondent no.4 would rank senior to the appellant. The learned Judge observed that in his reply the appellant had not disputed this factual assertion of the respondent no.4 but it was brought to our notice that in paragraph 13 of the rejoinder, the appellant had asserted that the said period was allowed by the Department to be treated as leave without pay and, therefore, there was no break in service. In any event, this fact is not of much consequence. 8. In any event, this fact is not of much consequence. 8. The question which really arises for consideration is whether in terms of Annexure-4 dated 20th November, 1981, the appellant was eligible and had a better claim to be appointed as the Head Master of the School, and further, whether the respondent no.4 was at all eligible for the post of Head Master of the School. This takes us to consideration of the aforesaid Govt. Order (Annexure-4) issued under Memo No. 510 dated 20th November 1981. The said letter contains the decision taken by the State Government. It is stated that the matter relating to the preparation of rules relating to condition of service was under consideration of the State Government and it was anticipated that it would take some time to give to the rules a final shape. In the mean time, large number of posts of Head Master were lying vacant in different Schools and the High Court had issued a direction to fill up all the vacancies within a time limit. Under these circumstances, in exercise of power u/s 15 of the aforesaid Ordinance, the Government had laid down the method for filling up the vacant posts of Head Masters which had occurred before 2nd October 1980. Paragraph 2 of the said Government Order lays down eligibility conditions which are three in number. The concerned teacher must have a graduate degree from a recognised University; secondly, he must have teaching experience of at least 10 years in a Secondary School recognised by the Secondary Education Board or the State Government, and lastly, the teacher must have acquired requisite training and obtained a certificate from a recognised institution mentioned in that paragraph. Paragraph 2 lays down only the eligibility conditions. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the said Govt. Order are relevant. A true and fair translation of Paragraphs 3 and 4 is as follows: Paragraph-3: "Promotion to the post of Head Master shall be granted on the basis of seniority cum-merit after obtaining approval of the School Service Board from amongst erstwhile Assistant Head Master/ Post Graduate and teachers appointed in the Selection Grade scale of pay. In Schools where there is no teacher of the aforesaid category, promotion shall be granted on the basis of merit cum-seniority from amongst graduate trained teachers". In Schools where there is no teacher of the aforesaid category, promotion shall be granted on the basis of merit cum-seniority from amongst graduate trained teachers". Paragraph-4:" In super-session of all orders earlier issued in relation to determination of seniority, for promotion to the post of Head Master the basis of seniority shall be as follows: (i) In Schools where an Assistant Head Master has been duly appointed in accc1rdance with Rules and is working, he shall be considered to be the seniormost teacher; (ii) In Schools where there are no Assistant Head Masters" the inter se seniority of Post Graduate and teachers working in the Selection Grade, shall be determined by reference to their date of appointment, as graduate teacher. For the purpose of promotion to the post of Head Master, the seniority of the selection grade teachers shall be determined by reference to their date of appointment as graduate teacher, and to this extent, Government Order No. 587 dated 27th February 1970 shall be deemed to have been superseded; and, (iii) Where teachers of categories (i) and (ii) are not working, seniority shall be determined on the basis of date of appointment in the School as trained graduate teachers." The rest of the paragraph is not relevant for our purpose. 9. The learned Judge in paragraph 9 of the judgment has considered the import of the said Circular. The learned Judge thought that sub-clause (ii) of Clause-4 of the Govt. Order provided that the seniority of teachers working in the M.A. untrained scale has to be determined on .the basis of their date of appointment in the capacity of graduate teacher, and that for the purpose of promotion to the post of Head Master, the seniority of 'the trained teachers shall be determined with reference to the date of appointment as graduate teachers. The learned Judge negatived the contention raised on behalf of respondent no. 4 that in order to be eligible for promotion as Head Master a teacher must have worked for at least 10 years as trained teacher. We find ourselves in agreement with the learned Judge in this regard, but we are of the view that the learned Judge committed an error in interpreting paragraph-4(ii) of Annexure-4. The learned Judge however, proceeded to consider the question as to who is senior amongst the petitioner and respondent no. 4 according to rule contained in Govt. We find ourselves in agreement with the learned Judge in this regard, but we are of the view that the learned Judge committed an error in interpreting paragraph-4(ii) of Annexure-4. The learned Judge however, proceeded to consider the question as to who is senior amongst the petitioner and respondent no. 4 according to rule contained in Govt. Circular No. 510 dated 20th November 1981 (Annexure-4). He concluded that according to sub-clause (ii) of Clause-4, the seniority for the purpose of promotion as Head Master has to be determined with reference to the date of appointment as graduate teacher. 10. From perusal of paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Govt. Circular (Annexure-4) it appears to us that in paragraph 3, three categories of teachers have been specified who, in first instance, must be considered for promotion to the post of Head Master on the basis of seniority cum-merit. The three categories are: (i) Assistant Head Master, (ii) Teachers with Post Graduate qualification, and (iii) Teachers appointed in the Selection Grade scale of pay. If any such teacher is available for promotion to the post of Head Master, he or they have first to be considered for promotion to the post of Head Master on the basis of seniority cum-merit after obtaining approval of the School Service Board. Only in the event of their being no Assistant Head Master and no teacher with Post Graduate qualification and no teacher in the Selection Grade scale of pay, the promotion may be granted from amongst the graduate trained teachers on the basis of merit cum-seniority. It, therefore, follows, that if in a School, there is an Assistant Head Master, or a teacher with post Graduate qualification, or a teacher appointed in the selection grade scale of pay, the question of considering any graduate trained teacher for promotion to the post of Head Master will not arise. 11. Paragraph 4 deals with the manner in which the seniority of the teachers inter se is to be determined. Sub-paragraph (i) provides that where an Assistant Head Master has been duly appointed in accordance with rules and is working, he will be considered to be the seniormost teacher. Under sub-paragraph (ii) it is provided that if there is no such Assistant Head Master the selection is confined to teachers with Post Graduate qualification and teachers working in the Selection Grade. Under sub-paragraph (ii) it is provided that if there is no such Assistant Head Master the selection is confined to teachers with Post Graduate qualification and teachers working in the Selection Grade. For the purpose of determining their seniority inter se, their date of appointment as Graduate teacher is relevant. This means that teachers with Post Graduate qualification and those working in the Selection Grade are treated as one category for the purpose of determining seniority, and their seniority inter se shall be determined on the basis of appointment as graduate teacher. This paragraph does not justify the conclusion that this sub-section permits the determination of seniority inter se between the Post Graduate teachers on the one hand and graduate trained teachers on the other. As earlier observed, the question of appointment of a graduate trained teacher as Head Master will not arise, if there is an Assistant Head Master in a School duly appointed, or there are teachers with P.G. qualification and those working in the Selection Grade. Under sub-paragraph (iii), a trained graduate teacher may be considered for appointment, if teachers in categories (i) and (ii) are not available. For determining their seniority inter se, the date of appointment in the School as trained graduate teacher is relevant. 12. We, therefore, hold that under paragraph 3 of the aforesaid Circular, for the purpose of appointment of a Head Master, the cases of only three categories of teachers have to be first considered, namely, Assistant Head Master, a teacher with P.G. qualification and teachers appointed in the Selection Grade scale of pay. In case there is no teacher available in the above categories, a graduate trained teacher may be appointed as Head Master Paragraph 4 of the Circular only lays down the principle for determination of seniority inter se and does not in any way modify the rule as can trained in paragraph 3 of the Circular. 13. Coming to the facts of this case, it is not disputed that on the relevant date i.e. or 1st October 1980, the appellant possessing a P.G. qualification, was a trained teacher and had also been appointed to the Selection Grade with effect from 1st April 1879. He had more than 10 years' teaching experience and was, therefore, eligible for appointment to the post of Head Master. He had more than 10 years' teaching experience and was, therefore, eligible for appointment to the post of Head Master. Respondent no.4 on the other hand was only a graduate trained teacher on the 1st October, 1980. Since the appellant, who was appointed to the Selection Grade scale' of pay, was available for being considered to be appointed as Head Master, the question of considering respondent no.4 for promotion as Head Master did not arise, since he was only a graduate trained teacher and he could be considered for promotion only if teachers mentioned in paragraph 31st part of the Circular were not available for promotion. We have also no doubt that sub-paragraph (ii) of Paragraph 4 of the Circular does not justify the inference that for the purpose of promotion to the post of Head Master it was necessary to determine the inter se seniority of graduate trained teachers and teachers belonging to Selection Grade scale of pay. The very existence of a teacher belonging to Selection Grade excluded from consideration the graduate trained teachers for appointment to the post of Head Master. Since the appellant was a Selection Grade teacher and had also P.G. qualification as on 1st January 1980, he was eligible for appointment as Head Master of the School. On the other hand, respondent no.4 was not a Selection Grade teacher on 1st January 1980, and in view of the fact that a Selection Grade teacher was available in the School in question his case for selection to the post of Head Master could not be considered. 14. Counsel for respondent no.4 submitted that the Government Order in the form of Circular (Annexure-4) was issued on 20th November 1981. It must, therefore, be held that all those teachers who had been appointed to the Selection Grade scale of pay on 20th November 1981 were eligible for consideration for promotion to the post of Head Master. Respondent no.4, though he had not been appointed to the Selection Grade on 1st October 1980, and was appointed a day later on 2nd October 1980, cannot be excluded from consideration since on the date of issuance of Circular, i.e., on 20th November 1987, he had acquired the requisite qualification as he was appointed to the Selection Grade. Respondent no.4, though he had not been appointed to the Selection Grade on 1st October 1980, and was appointed a day later on 2nd October 1980, cannot be excluded from consideration since on the date of issuance of Circular, i.e., on 20th November 1987, he had acquired the requisite qualification as he was appointed to the Selection Grade. In substance, the submission is that the relevant date for considering the qualification of teachers is the date of issuance of Circular which is dated 20th November 1981. We are not impressed by the argument. We have earlier noticed that the Government decided as a matter of principle that all vacant posts of Head Master, where vacancies arose on or before 1st October 1980, had to be filled up from amongst the teachers of the School in question. All such vacancies which arose after 1st October 1980 were to be filled up on the basis of the State wise seniority List. Such being the case, the relevant date for the purpose of acquisition of qualification must be the 1st October 1980 because the vacancies which arose on or before that date were sought to be filled up by following a procedure different than the procedure prescribed for filling up vacancies occurring thereafter. There is nothing in the aforesaid Circular which can persuade to take any other view. 15. We are therefore, of the view that this appeal should be allowed. Accordingly, the judgment and order of the learned Judge passed in C.W.J.C. No. 10403/89 on 11th February 1994 is set aside and the Letters Patent Appeal is allowed quashing the orders contained in Annexures-6, 10 and 10/A of the writ petition. The respondents shall now consider the case of appellant for promotion to the post of Head Master of the School in question applying the rule laid down in Annexure-4. 16. We, however, clarify that in case the appellant is found suitable for promotion to the post of Head Master, his seniority shall be reckoned as if he had been promoted with effect from the date on which respondent no.4 was promoted as the Head Master of the School. The respondent State of Bihar is directed to take a decision in the matter within a period of three months from the date on which a copy of this order is produced before respondent no.2. 17. The respondent State of Bihar is directed to take a decision in the matter within a period of three months from the date on which a copy of this order is produced before respondent no.2. 17. There shall be no order as to costs.