ORDER Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the State. 2. At the outset learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the grievances in the writ petition is against erroneous denial of promotion by application of wrong principle of law. The gradation list is not disputed by them. He therefore submits that Respondents 6 to 25 may be permitted to be deleted at their risk. Permission is accorded. 3. It is submitted that the petitioners were appointed as Matric trained teachers. They have acquired the training qualification also and their name figures in the gradation list of graduate trained teachers eligible to be considered for promotion to graduate trained scale. 4. The only reason why the petitioners have been excluded and juniors given the benefit of promotion, on query as informed to the petitioners, is that they improved their educational qualification by obtaining degree in graduation while in service, allegedly without permission. They were private students and there are no allegation that it even had any adverse effect on discharge of duties by them. No show cause notice or disciplinary action was ever taken for such misdemeanour. Reliance has been placed on an order in CWJC no. 16729 of 2012 with regard to similar claims, which in turn relies upon 1991 (2) PLJR 384 (Dr. Anil Prasad Gara & others v. State of Bihar) (DB). 5. Counsel for the State submits that in absence of instruction he is not in a position to assist if there were any other impediment in consideration of the claim. 6. Subject to the objection of the State, let the respondents examine the grievance of the petitioners in the limited nature of the controversy as brought by them in context of the order in CWJC No. 16729 of 2012. If the respondents are satisfied that the petitioners are similarly situated they would be accorded similar treatment. 7. If the respondents opine that they are differently situated they shall give show cause notice to the petitioners setting out the grounds for such difference of opinion, grant a personal hearing to the petitioners and then pass a reasoned order supported by materials and disclosing the reasons for their conclusion how the petitioners were differently situated. 8. The writ application stands disposed in similar terms as CWJC No. 16729 of 2012.