JUDGMENT S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. This application has been preferred by the petitioner against the order, contained in Letters No. E/11/428 dated 3rd October, 2003 and 9th October, 2003, both issued from the office of Cantonment Board, Ramgarh Cantt., Ramgarh, Jharkhand. By the first letter dated 3rd October, 2003 while the petitioner, Head Mistress of Cantonment Board, Middle School, Ramgarh Cantt. has been informed that in view of the judgment of this Court, the 5th respondent Smt. Indu Singh has been promoted to the post of Head Mistress, Cantonment Board, Middle School, Ramgarh Cantt., Ramgarh, by the second order dated 9th October, 2003 she (petitioner) has been transferred to the post of Head Mistress, Cantonment Board Primary School, Ramgarh Cantt., Ramgarh. 2. The main plea, taken by the petitioner, is that she being senior to the 5th respondent, was rightly promoted and posted as Head Mistress, Cantonment Board, Middle School, Ramgarh Cantt., Ramgarh. 3. The brief fact of the case, as pleaded and appears from the record, is that both the petitioner and 5th respondent were appointed as Assistant Lady Teachers in Cantonment Girls Middle School, Ramgarh. In the seniority list, 5th respondent was shown senior to the petitioner. Initially the post of Head Mistress, Cantonment Girls Middle School, Ramgarh Cantt., Ramgarh, fell vacant on 31st January, 1998, due to superannuation of Smt. Pramila Srivastava, Head Mistress, which was a promotional post. Petitioner Smt. Sindhu Sahay has obtained B.A. Degree in the year, 1987 whereas the 5th respondent Smt. Indu Singh has passed Sahitya Alankar, equivalent to B.A. Degree, from Deoghar Vidyapith in the year, 1990. The post of Head Mistress of Cantonment Primary School fell vacant on 31st January, 1986, due to superannuation of one Sri Suchit Narayan Singh. As per seniority list, smt. Indu Singh, having been appointed on 6th September, 1970, should have been given the charge of the post but for one or other reason, junior to her i.e. the petitioner Smt. Sindhu Sahay, having been appointed as Teacher on 27th July, 1973, was given charge of the post of Head Mistress of Cantonment Primary School, Pochra. Later on Smt. Indu Singh was given charge of the post of Head Mistress, Cantonment Primary School, Chhotkakana, which fell vacant due to retirement of Shri Nishi Kant Deogharia, Head Master, on 31st January, 199V. However, she showed her inability to take over the charge. Later on Smt. Indu Singh was given charge of the post of Head Mistress, Cantonment Primary School, Chhotkakana, which fell vacant due to retirement of Shri Nishi Kant Deogharia, Head Master, on 31st January, 199V. However, she showed her inability to take over the charge. In the year, 1998 5th respondent preferred a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 3077 of 1998(R) for her promotion to the post of Head Mistress. Though no regular promotion was given to her, but in the meantime, when the matter was taken up by the respondents, the Principal Director gave note that the 5th respondent has lost seniority, having refused promotion. On that basis petitioner was promoted to the post of Head Mistress, Middle School, Ramgarh Cantt. In fact, earlier petitioner was not promoted as Head Mistress but was asked to take charge of the higher post and, therefore, the question of refusal of promotion and the question of loosing seniority of 5th respondent does not arise. 4. It is not in dispute that although the petitioner Smt. Sindhu Sahay was junior to the 5th respondent Smt. Indu Singh, she was given charge of the higher post of Head Mistress in the year, 1996 without considering the case of the 5th respondent. Thereafter, she (Smt. Sindhu Sahay) was promoted on regular basis as Head Mistress in the pay scale of Rs. 2,000-3,500/- and was posted as Head Mistress, Cantonment Girls Middle School, Ramgarh, by order dated 7th May, 1999 (Annexure 1). The 5th respondent Smt. Indu Singh, who was senior and was given charge of the higher post of Head Mistress of Cantonment Girls Middle School, Ramgarh Cantt., Ramgarh, was asked to hand over the charge to the petitioner Smt. Sindhu Sahay and thereby for the first time, the 5th respondent was superseded by the petitioner, without considering her case, by order dated 7th May, 1999 as aforesaid, Prior to that none of them was given regular promotion to the post of Head Mistress. During pendency of the writ petition, preferred by 5th respondent in the year, 1998 regarding her promotion to the post of Head Mistress, the petitioner was given promotion as Head Mistress on 7th May, 1999. During pendency of the writ petition, preferred by 5th respondent in the year, 1998 regarding her promotion to the post of Head Mistress, the petitioner was given promotion as Head Mistress on 7th May, 1999. When the case was taken up by a Bench of this Court on 28th September, 2000, it was noticed that the 5th respondent has also challenged Office Order No. 12 dated 7th May, 1999 regarding promotion of the petitioner Smt. Sindhu Sahay, by filing a petition for amendment in the prayer. The prayer was allowed and the petitioner Smt. Sindu Sahay was noticed in the said case. But she did not choose to appear to contest the case. However, other respondents appeared and took plea that the petitioner (5th respondent herein) had refused to join the post of Head Mistress on promotion. From the order dated 28th September, 2000 it further appears that this Court had earlier directed the respondents to produce the order of promotion, if any earlier issued. Accordingly, they produced Office Order No. 12 dated 7th May, 1999 and submitted that the 5th respondent (petitioner therein) has also been promoted to the higher post of Head Mistress in pursuance of Resolution of the Cantonment Board dated 3rd May, 1999 (Agenda No. 5). 5. From the aforesaid facts, it will be evident that the 5th respondent was promoted for the first time in pursuance of Resolution dated 3rd May, 1999 to the post of Head Mistress and thus, the question of refusal of promotion, prior to the same, does not arise. 6. This Court in the case of Smt. Indu Singh (C.W.J.C. No. 3077 of 1999R) having noticed that two different orders were issued; one in respect of Smt. Sindhu Sahay and another in respect of Smt. Indu Singh, and the statement, made by the respondents before the Court that 5th respondent will be given charge and pay-scale of the higher post of Head Mistress i.e. Rs. 2,000-3,500/-, allowed the respondents to do so. In view of such statement, made by the respondent Cantonment Board and its Officers, the order of promotion of Smt. Sindhu Sahay against the higher post and pay scale of Rs. 2,000-3,500/- was not set aside and the Court did not choose to interfere with the said order. 2,000-3,500/-, allowed the respondents to do so. In view of such statement, made by the respondent Cantonment Board and its Officers, the order of promotion of Smt. Sindhu Sahay against the higher post and pay scale of Rs. 2,000-3,500/- was not set aside and the Court did not choose to interfere with the said order. However, taking into consideration that there may be some anomalies in posting one or other persons, the respondents were allowed to post Smt. Indu Singh as Head Mistress of a Middle School so that she may receive the same scale. 7. In view of such order, passed by this Court and observations, made on 28th September, 2000 in C.W.J.C. No. 3077 of 1999R, in the case in which both Smt. Sindhu Sahay and Smt. Indu Singh were parties, the respondents have posted the 5th respondent Smt. Indu Singh as Head Mistress, Cantonment Board Middle School, Ramgarh Cantt, Ramgarh while the petitioner Smt. Sindhu Sahay has been posted as Head Mistress, Cantonment Board Primary School, Ramgarh Cantonment, Ramgarh and has been provided the pay scale of Rs. 2,000-3,500/-. 8. Counsel for the petitioner Smt. Sindhu Sahay submitted that the post of Head Mistress, Cantonment Board Primary School, Ramgarh Cantt., Ramgarh, is a post, having lower pay scale than the post of Head Mistress, Cantonment Board Middle School, Ramgarh Cantt., Ramgarh. However, the respondents have stated that because of the anomalies, they have upgraded the post so that the petitioner Smt. Sindhu Sahay may get the pay scale of Rs. 2,000-3,500/-. I have also noticed that the 5th respondent Smt. Indu Singh was senior to the petitioner Smt. Sindhu Sahay. She was never given regular promotion, prior to 3rd May, 1999 and thereby, it can not be said that he refused any promotion. She was superseded by Smt. Sindhu Sahay when order dated 7th May, 1999 was issued and She (Smt. Indu Singh) was asked to give charge of the post of Head Mistress, Cantonment Board Middle School, Ramgarh Cantt., Ramgarh to Smt. (sic) Singh. However, such promotion was subject to the decision of the case i.e. C.W.J.C. No. 3077 of 1999R, preferred by Smt. Indu Singh for her promotion as the same was pending. However, such promotion was subject to the decision of the case i.e. C.W.J.C. No. 3077 of 1999R, preferred by Smt. Indu Singh for her promotion as the same was pending. The High Court could have interfered with the order of promotion, having been granted to Smt. Sindhu Sahay, junior to Smt. Indu Singh, without considering the case of the senior, namely, Smt. Indu Singh. But taking into consideration the fact that Smt. Indu Singh has been granted promotion to the post of Head Mistress in the pay scale of Rs. 2,000-3,500/- i.e. the pay scale of Head Mistress, Cantonment Board Middle School, Ramgarh Cantt., Ramgarh, did not interfere with the order of promotion of the petitioner Smt. Sindhu Sahay. 9. As such, the petitioner should not complain that she has been reverted to the lower post of Head Mistress, Cantonment Board Primary Girls School, Ramgarh Cantt., Ramgarh, she having been allowed the pay scale of Rs. 2,000-3,500/-, which is a pay scale of the post of Head Mistress, Cantonment Board Middle School, Ramgarh Cantt., Ramgarh. This has been done by the respondents only because of the order of this Court dated 28th September, 2000, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3077 of 1999R, I, therefore, find no merit in this writ petition which is accordingly, dismissed.