JUDGMENT S.J. Mukhopadhaya and Lakshman Uraon, JJ. 1. The writ petitioner-appellant Vijay Choubey was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 3rd April, 1973 and having passed graduation in 1974 became a trained graduate. However, he having not promoted to higher B.A. trained scale of pay moved before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2800/1995 (R) (Vijay Choubey v. State of Bihar) for direction on respondents to grant B.A. trained scale w.e.f. December, 1974 i.e. from the date he passed B.A. examination. 2. In the said writ petitioner the grievance of the appellant was that juniors to him had been granted promotion to higher grade. A Bench of this Court vide order dated 18th October, 1995 disposed of the writ petition and directed the D.S.E., Palamau to take up the matter before the appropriate Committee for consideration and final decision. 3. Thereafter, the respondents on consideration of case rejected the claim of appellant, Vijay Choubey, communicated vide memo No. 2080, dated 17th August, 1996. Aforesaid order was again challenged by appellant in C.W.J.C. No. 3851/1996 (R). In the said case learned single Judge vide impugned order dated, 16th September, 1997 and being satisfied with the stand taken in the counter- affidavit and grounds shown In the order, dismissed the writ petition. 4. It appears that the appellant Vijay Choubey shown examples of number of persons promoted B.A. trained scale (Head Master). They were alleged to be juniors to him. The respondent vide impugned order dated 17th August, 1996 made it clear that except 4 teachers placed at Serial Nos. 1, 2, 11 and 12 rest being Science Teachers, the appellant cannot claim seniority over them. 5. So far as Sl. Nos. 1, 2, 11 and 12 are concerned, their cases have been discussed individually. It was brought to the notice of the appellant, that Shri Juthi Prasad Singh though appointed on 3rd April, 1973 along with appellant was already graduate trained prior to his appointment. Whereas the appellant graduated in the year 1974. 6. So far as one Shri Giriwar Tiwary is concerned, it has been informed that Shri Tiwary was appointed on 4th September, 1968 whereas the appellant was appointed on 3rd April, 1973, both of them became graduate in the year 1974, so the petitioner cannot claim seniority over him. Whereas the appellant graduated in the year 1974. 6. So far as one Shri Giriwar Tiwary is concerned, it has been informed that Shri Tiwary was appointed on 4th September, 1968 whereas the appellant was appointed on 3rd April, 1973, both of them became graduate in the year 1974, so the petitioner cannot claim seniority over him. Similar was the ground shown in respect to one Shri Latifur Rahman and another Shri Mutyab-, ba who were appointed prior to petitioner on 7th October, 1968 and 9th October, 1968 respectively. 7. It has been further mentioned in the order dated 17th August, 1976 that in the seniority list, the name of appellant being at Serial No. 142/86, his case can be considered as and when his turn will come. 8. Counsel for the appellant submitted that there is error of records with respect to Giriwar Tiwary who graduated after petitioner in the year 1976. However, this will not make any difference nor the petitioner can be given any advantage Shri Giriwar Tiwary having been appointed on 4th September, 1968. 9. Further, as it appears that from Annexure-13, Shri Juthi Prasad Singh and Shri Giriwar Tiwary, were promoted in the B.A. trained scale, (Head Master) as on 19th May, 1977, it is not desirable to reopen the issue at this belated stage after more than 25 years and in a situation when about 141 persons senior to the appellant are already in the queue. 10. There being no merit, the appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.