Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 184 (PAT)

Ajay Kumar Srivastava v. State of Bihar

2003-02-14

P.N.YADAV, S.N.JHA

body2003
JUDGEMENT S.N.JHA and P.N. YADAV, JJ.: - The dispute in this writ petition on behalf of eleven petitioners relates to seniority between the petitioners on the one hand and respondent nos. 19 to 99 on the other. Under challenge are the gradation list, dated 30.11.1990, and the promotion of respondent nos. 19 to 99 to the Subordinate Education Service. The petitioners have impleaded another group of respondents being respondent nos. 9 to 18, who were directly appointed to the Subordinate Education Service. They were made party because they were posted in the same school as Incharge Headmasters where the petitioners were posted. In course of time the petitioners moved to other schools and, therefore, their grievance vis-a-vis respondent nos. 9 to 18 has come to an end. 2. The case of the petitioners is that though they were graduates, they were appointed in the matric un-trained scale. They were later absorbed in the graduate trained scale and they are entitled to seniority over respondent nos. 19 to 99. According to the respondents the petitioners were appointed on stipend and not in scale and, therefore, their claim is without any basis. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that 50% posts of the Subordinate Education Service are filled by direct recruitment while the rest 50% are filled by promotion from the eligible members of the Lower Subordinate Education Service. While the lower Subordinate Education Service has a Divisional cadre, the Subordinate Education Service has State Cadre. Such of the members of the Lower Subordinate Education Service who possess requisite qualification i.e., graduation and training and have rendered ten years service in the matric trained scale are eligible for promotion according to the gradation list prepared on the basis of the date of appointment in the matric trained scale. Since the petitioners were untrained at the time of their appointment and were pointed on stipend and not in the matric trained scale, they are not entitled to seniority on the basis of their initial appointment and their names thus were not included in the gradation list. 3. Since the petitioners were untrained at the time of their appointment and were pointed on stipend and not in the matric trained scale, they are not entitled to seniority on the basis of their initial appointment and their names thus were not included in the gradation list. 3. On behalf of the petitioners it was submitted that as the petitioners were appointed in the matric trained scale and directly absorbed in the graduate trained scale they cannot be denied seniority on the basis of grant of matric trained scale, and treating only those who had completed then years in matric trained scale as eligible for promotion is un-just. Appreciating the submission of the learned counsel the Court observed that in such case the grant of graduate trained scale may be treated as the reckoning date. After some argument counsel for the petitioners agreed with the suggestion that the date of grant of graduate trained scale should be treated as reckoning date and the petition may be disposed of accordingly. 4. In the above premises, I find no merit in the grievance of the petitioners vis-a-vis respondent nos. 19 to 99. Thus, dismissing the writ petition, the Court would clarify that the petitioners seniority may be considered with reference to the date of grant of trained scale. It may be mentioned that in course of hearing it was stated that the petitioners have since been promoted to Subordinate Education Service during the pendency of this writ petition. 5. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed but with the observation made herein -above. There will be no order as to cost.