JUDGMENT 1. This Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is preferred by the respondent-State of Bihar against the order dated 6th May 2010 made by the learned single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 250 of 2010. 2. The matter at issue is the seniority of a B.Sc. trained teacher in an elementary school for the purpose of promotion to the post of Headmaster. The respondent-writ petitioner claimed that although at the time of joining service in 1977 he was not qualified for appointment to the post of Headmaster, while in service he improved his qualification and received the teacher training (DP. Ed.). Since the acquisition of the qualification of teacher training, he is entitled to seniority amongst the B.Sc. trained teachers from the date of his initial appointment. According to the State Government, the petitioner is entitled to seniority as a B.Sc. trained teacher from the date he acquired the teacher training. 3. The learned single Judge has upheld the claim of the writ petitioner following the judgment of this Court in the matter of Badri Narain Verma vs. State of Bihar & Others, 1992 (2) PLJR 309 . Therefore, this Appeal. 4. The Appeal is contested by the respondent No. 1, the writ petitioner. The respondent nos. 2 to 17 (respondent nos. 4 to 19 in the writ petition) (hereinafter referred to as the supporting respondents) have supported the Appeal. According to the supporting respondents, the above referred judgment in the matter of Badri Narain Verma is not a binding precedent insofar as it was passed ex-parte against the supporting respondents. The supporting respondents have assailed the impugned order also on the ground that it is made ex-parte against the supporting respondents. 5. We do agree with the supporting respondents that the impugned order made by the learned single Judge requires to be set aside on the sole ground that the impugned order is made ex-parte against the supporting respondents. However, the matter is argued before us at length on merit and there being several judgments of various benches of this Court, we consider it expedient to decide the Appeal on merits. 6. On 23rd February 1975, the District Superintendent of Education, Nawada issued a public advertisement calling for applications for appointment of teachers in the elementary schools of Nawada District on monthly stipend of Rs. 175/-. 6. On 23rd February 1975, the District Superintendent of Education, Nawada issued a public advertisement calling for applications for appointment of teachers in the elementary schools of Nawada District on monthly stipend of Rs. 175/-. The advertisement stipulated that the applicant should be the resident of Nawada District should possess the qualification of Intermediate Science or B.Sc. trained or untrained. We are informed that the said recruitment was made under a programme sponsored by the UNICEF. The petitioner, who then possessed a B.Sc. degree, applied pursuant to the said advertisement. Under order dated 4th January 1977 made by the District Superintendent of Education, Nawada, he came to be appointed as a B.Sc. untrained teacher against the post of Intermediate Science trained teacher for a monthly stipend of Rs. 160/-. With effect from 1st April 1981, he was allowed to draw a fixed pay of Rs. 296/- the minimum in the pay scale of an Intermediate Science trained teacher. The petitioner acquired the training sometime in 1984. Since the acquisition of training, the petitioner has been treated as B.Sc. trained teacher. He has now lodged the claim for promotion to the post of Headmaster from the dates the supporting respondents were so promoted. The respondent No. 2 was promoted as a Headmaster on 17th December 1987. Rest of the supporting respondents were promoted as Headmasters on 28th December 1990. 7. Feeling aggrieved by promotion of the supporting respondents, one Surendra Pandey and others approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The said petition came to be dismissed for non-prosecution. The application for restoration was also not entertained by the Court. Letters Patent Appeal No. 834 of 2000 arising therefrom too was dismissed. The said Surendra Pandey and others filed another writ petition C.W.J.C. No. 1520 of 2001 in the same subject matter. The said petition came to be allowed on 9th April 2009 by the learned single Judge following the above referred judgment in the matter of Badri Narain Verma. The learned single Judge, however, made it clear that in no condition the petitioners shall be entitled to monetary benefits of the promotion prior to 25.09.2000, the date on which their application came to be dismissed. It appears that encouraged by the above order dated 9th April 2009, the writ petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in above C.W.J.C. No. 250 of 2010. It appears that encouraged by the above order dated 9th April 2009, the writ petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in above C.W.J.C. No. 250 of 2010. Although the supporting respondents were impleaded as respondent nos. 4 to 19, without issuing notice to the supporting respondents, following the judgment in the matter of Badri Narain Verma (supra), the learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition. 8. Since the judgment in the matter of Badri Narain Verma (supra) is followed all along, we will first consider the said judgment. In the said matter, an identical issue was raised by the petitioner Badri Narain Verma and one another. The learned single Judge did notice the Government orders issued from time to time governing the service conditions of the elementary school teachers. Following the judgment of the Division Bench in C.W.J.C. No. 2205 of 1977, the learned single Judge held that on acquisition of required qualification, a teacher would be entitled to seniority from the date of his appointment. This judgment has been consistently followed by this Court. 9. Learned advocate Mr. Madhuresh Prasad has appeared for the appellant-State of Bihar and the learned advocate Mr. Amarendra Kumar has appeared for the supporting respondents. Both the learned advocates have relied upon the relevant provisions, circulars and orders in the subject matter issued by the State Government from time to time. 10. In 1976, the State of Bihar issued an Ordinance to govern the service conditions of the elementary school teachers. Under Article 8 of the said Ordinance, on 15th December 1976 the State of Bihar issued a general direction for establishment of the schools and for conditions of service of school teachers; their appointment; qualifications; seniority; transfer; pay scales etc. The aforesaid Ordinance was replaced by the Bihar Non-Government Elementary Schools (Taking over of Control) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1976). In exercise of the powers conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution and consequent upon the implementation of the Central Pay Scale, the Government of Bihar has framed the Bihar Taken over Elementary Schools Teachers Promotion Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the 1993 Rules). The said Rules have been made retrospective effective from 1st January 1986. 11. Learned advocate Mr. The said Rules have been made retrospective effective from 1st January 1986. 11. Learned advocate Mr. Amarendra Kumar has also relied upon the Government Notifications/circulars/orders dated 3rd July 1981, 20th October 1981, 21st August 1981, 15th September 1981, 20th November 1982, 2nd June 1982 and dated 18th December 1984 issued in the subject matter. 12. At the outset we will note that none of the above referred provisions, Act, Rules, Notifications, Circulars, Orders is under challenge before us. 13. On perusal of the above referred order dated 15th December 1976, the provisions contained in the Act of 1976, the 1993 Rules and the above referred Notifications/ circulars/orders issued by the State Government from time to time, we find that in the matter of elementary education, there is no room for untrained teachers. It is the trained teachers alone who are recognized as teachers and are granted regular pay scale and are made eligible for further promotion. The teachers might be Matric trained, Intermediate trained or Graduate trained. Separate pay scales are provided for each of the aforesaid categories of teachers. It appears that in absence of availability of the trained teachers alone untrained teachers were appointed. Irrespective of their qualifications (Intermediate or Graduate), such untrained teachers were appointed against the posts of Intermediate trained teachers and were allowed to draw the basic pay in minimum of the pay scale admissible to an Intermediate trained teacher. 14. As early as on 15th December 1976, the State Government had decided that for appointment of a teacher, a candidate must possess the teacher training. In the merit list for appointment as teachers, the trained candidates would rank above the untrained candidates, amongst the untrained candidates, the Graduates would rank above the Intermediate passed personnel and the Intermediate passed personnel would rank above the Matriculate personnel. In the matter of pay, it was decided that the pay in the regular pay scale would be admissible to such persons only after they acquire the teacher training. Similar instructions were issued under the Government Notification dated 15th September 1981 issued in respect of the revision of pay of elementary school teachers. The pay scales were only for the trained Graduates and for Intermediate trained and Matric trained teachers. The said Notification also provided for seniority of the teachers in various grades and for promotion from one grade to the other. The pay scales were only for the trained Graduates and for Intermediate trained and Matric trained teachers. The said Notification also provided for seniority of the teachers in various grades and for promotion from one grade to the other. Similar provisions were made under Government Notification dated 18th December 1984 and are made in the 1993 Rules. 15. As recorded hereinabove, the 1993 Rules have been made effective from 1st January 1986. Under Rule 2 of the said Rules, the different grades are defined; such as Matric Trained Basic Scale; Matric Trained Senior Scale; Matric Trained Selection Scale; trained Arts Graduate Scale and Trained Science Graduate Scale; Trained Graduate Senior Scale and Trained Graduate Selection Scale. The term trained has been defined as persons who have undergone and passed (i) two years teachers training; or (ii) Diploma in Education or B.Ed. or (iii) one year training in service tenure. Rule 4 thereof makes it compulsory for a teacher to possess the minimum prescribed education qualification and training and minimum prescribed service for promotion. The educational qualification and minimum service tenure is provided in Rule 5 thereof. Rule 6 thereof provides that the promotion will be made on available posts. Rule 7 thereof provides for seniority list for promotion. The said Rule, inter alia, provides for a separate seniority list for Arts and Science teachers and the order of seniority. Rule 8 thereof provides inter se seniority. Rule 8 reads as under:- "8. Inter-se Seniority in the same grade – Inter se seniority of teachers working in the same grade shall be decided under the following standard:- (1) The date of getting the said grade shall be the basis for determining the seniority. If the date of getting the grade is the same, then date of getting lower grade shall be the basis and accordingly date of getting lowest grade, wherever required, shall be the basis. (2) In case of the date of getting the grade is the same, date of birth shall be the basis. (3) In case of date of birth being the same, in that case inter-se seniority shall be determined according to the alphabetic order of their names in Roman script." 16. Similar were the provisions in the Notification dated 21st August 1981, the Act of 1976 and the order dated 15th December 1976. 17. (3) In case of date of birth being the same, in that case inter-se seniority shall be determined according to the alphabetic order of their names in Roman script." 16. Similar were the provisions in the Notification dated 21st August 1981, the Act of 1976 and the order dated 15th December 1976. 17. Thus it is evident that for the purpose of seniority it is not the date of appointment as teacher which is relevant, but what is relevant is the date of appointment in a particular grade. A teacher will be placed in a particular grade only if he is a trained teacher. In other words if an untrained person is appointed as a teacher, he will not be placed in any of the grades 1 to 8. Teacher training is a pre-requisite for placing a teacher in a particular grade. Thus it is apparent that to get entry into the seniority list, a teacher must have acquired training and is allowed a particular grade. After inclusion in a particular grade, the promotion is not automatic. For being eligible for promotion to a higher grade a teacher is required to have specified years of service in the lower grade. In the present case after training the petitioner would enter grade 4 of trained Science Graduate Scale. He would become eligible for promotion after completing specified service in the lower grade. His name would be entered in the seniority list after he becomes eligible for promotion to a higher grade. In the present case, it is admitted fact that the petitioner was appointed on stipend. He was allowed to draw basic pay in the minimum of the pay scale of trained Intermediate Science from 1st April 1981 and that he acquired training in the year 1984. There is no gainsaying that until he acquired training in 1984, the petitioner was neither entitled to a particular pay scale nor he was eligible for promotion. The aforesaid rule of seniority clearly stipulates that for the purpose of entry into the seniority list, a teacher must have acquired the teacher training. In other words, it is the date of acquiring the teacher training and completion of specified years of service which is relevant for the purpose of seniority. 18. The State Government was also concerned about the untrained teachers continuing in service. In other words, it is the date of acquiring the teacher training and completion of specified years of service which is relevant for the purpose of seniority. 18. The State Government was also concerned about the untrained teachers continuing in service. To meet that situation, the State Government under its order dated 20th October 1981 decided to run one years training course, especially for the untrained teachers in the elementary schools. 19. Having considered the above referred order dated 15th December 1976 followed by various circulars and Notifications and the 1993 Rules, we have no doubt that no teacher, unless he acquires the teacher training, has right to regular pay scale in the particular grade. Until a teacher is allowed a particular grade he has no right to seniority. It is but natural that he gets seniority from the date he enters the grade and that is what is envisaged under the 1976 Act and the 1993 Rules. In our opinion, the view taken in the above-referred judgments will undermine the very principle that a teacher must possess the qualification of the teacher training. If the teacher acquiring teacher training while in service is allowed to take seniority from the date of appointment, he will be allowed to steal a march over the trained teachers who are placed in a particular grade and have already entered the seniority list. A further anomaly will arise if such trained teacher has already earned promotion to a higher grade or to the post of Headmaster. Further, the gradation list will always be in a flux. Hence, the petitioners claim that once he acquired the training he would be entitled to seniority from the date of initial appointment is contrary to the Government policy contained in the above referred Rules, orders and instructions. 20. In the present case it is admitted that at the time of his appointment in 1977, although the petitioner had acquired B.Sc. degree he had not acquired teacher training; he was appointed on a monthly stipend of Rs. 160/- he was allowed to draw the basic pay in the minimum of the pay scale of an Intermediate trained teacher on 1st April 1981 and was not allowed the regular pay scale until he acquired teacher training in 1984. Thus, the petitioner entered the grade of trained Science Graduate for the first time in 1984. 160/- he was allowed to draw the basic pay in the minimum of the pay scale of an Intermediate trained teacher on 1st April 1981 and was not allowed the regular pay scale until he acquired teacher training in 1984. Thus, the petitioner entered the grade of trained Science Graduate for the first time in 1984. The Government order dated 15th February 1976 as well as 1993 Rules envisage the seniority of a teacher from the date he enters a particular grade. The petitioners claim that on his acquiring teacher training he should be placed above the supporting respondents is contrary to the Government order dated 15th December 1976, the 1976 Act and the 1993 Rules and requires to be rejected. 21. The claim requires to be rejected on the grounds of delay, laches and acquiescence also. Although the supporting respondents were promoted as Headmaster as early as in 1987 and 1990, the petitioner has challenged their promotions 20 years thereafter, in 2010. According to the petitioner, the said delay has been caused on account of want of seniority list. The petitioner has made a categorical statement that in the Nawada District, the seniority list of the teachers was not at all published. The petitioner and such others were, therefore, not aware of their seniority vis-a-vis the other trained teachers. The petitioner, therefore, could not challenge his super-session sooner. The contention is belied by the averments made in the writ petition. In the very next paragraph, the petitioner has made a statement that feeling aggrieved by the promotion of the supporting respondents, the petitioner and such others had made a representation to the District Superintendent of Education, Nawada and that over a period of time several such representations were made. It is apparent that the petitioner was indolent or was not vigilant about his right, if any. He has brought a stale claim 20 years after the date of the cause of action and when the petitioner was on the verge of retirement. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has in the matter of P.S. Sadasivaswamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 2271 , dealt with a similar claim raised 14 years after the juniors were promoted. He has brought a stale claim 20 years after the date of the cause of action and when the petitioner was on the verge of retirement. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has in the matter of P.S. Sadasivaswamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 2271 , dealt with a similar claim raised 14 years after the juniors were promoted. The Hon’ble Court observed, be that as it may, if the appellant was aggrieved by it he should have approached the Court even in the year 1957 after the two representations made by him had failed to produce any result. One cannot sleep over the matter and come to the Court questioning that relaxation in the year 1971. The Hon’ble Court further held, a person aggrieved by an order of promoting a junior over his head should approach the Court at least within six months or at the most a year of such promotion. It is not that there is any period of limitation for the Courts to exercise their powers under Article 226 nor is it that there can never be a case where the Courts cannot interfere in a matter after the passage of a certain length of time. But it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the Courts to refuse to exercise their extraordinary powers under Article 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the Court to put forward stale claims and try to unsettle settled matters. The petitioner’s petition should, therefore, have been dismissed in limine. Entertaining such petitions is a waste of time of the Court. It clogs the work of the Court and impedes the work of the Court in considering legitimate grievances as also its normal work. 22. We are also disturbed the way the petitioner and such others have obtained ex-parte orders against the supporting respondents over a long period of time. As we have noticed above, in the matter of Badri Narain Verma (supra), although the writ petitioners had claimed seniority over the supporting respondents, the supporting respondents were not impleaded at all. In the matter of Surendra Pandey and Others, C.W.J.C. No. 1520 of 2001, the supporting respondents were impleaded as party respondent nos. 4 to 19. As we have noticed above, in the matter of Badri Narain Verma (supra), although the writ petitioners had claimed seniority over the supporting respondents, the supporting respondents were not impleaded at all. In the matter of Surendra Pandey and Others, C.W.J.C. No. 1520 of 2001, the supporting respondents were impleaded as party respondent nos. 4 to 19. The supporting respondents had also entered appearance and filed counter affidavit. After receipt of the counter affidavit made by the supporting respondents, the writ petitioners obtained permission to delete the said supporting respondents from the cause title. Neither the supporting respondents had opportunity to be heard before the Court; nor was their counter affidavit taken into consideration. Same is true about the petition filed by one Ganesh Dutt Sharma and Others, C.W.J.C. No. 8033 of 2009. 23. Much is required to be said about the concerned Government counsels. If nothing else, it is the duty of the Government counsels to point out such infirmities in the writ petition before the Court and to see to it that necessary parties are impleaded in the proceedings and that no ex-parte orders are passed in absence of the necessary parties. In the present case also, although the supporting respondents were impleaded as respondent nos. 4 to 19, no notice was issued upon the supporting respondents. The impugned order has thus been made ex-parte against the supporting respondents. This kind of practice of obtaining ex parte orders from the Court does not benefit the writ petitioners in long run and leads to multifarious litigations. We therefore have to issue caution against the learned advocates obtaining ex parte orders and the Government counsels, who fail to point out the infirmities in the writ petition and allow the Court to make order ex parte or in absence of the necessary parties. 24. We have called for the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the matter of Kameshwar Prasad Sharma and Others vs. State of Bihar & Others, C.W.J.C. No. 2205 of 1977, decided on 12th September 1979, Mr. Justice Uday Sinha and Mr. Justice Umesh Chandra Sharma – followed in the judgment of Badri Narain Verma (supra). From perusal of the judgment it appears that identical claim for seniority was raised by B.A. trained teacher who had entered the service in Intermediate Arts Grade, whereas private respondents had entered in the service in grade for Graduate trained teachers. Justice Uday Sinha and Mr. Justice Umesh Chandra Sharma – followed in the judgment of Badri Narain Verma (supra). From perusal of the judgment it appears that identical claim for seniority was raised by B.A. trained teacher who had entered the service in Intermediate Arts Grade, whereas private respondents had entered in the service in grade for Graduate trained teachers. Over the period of time, the petitioners had improved their qualifications and had entered the grade of trained Graduate in Arts. They claimed seniority as a trained Graduate from the date of their initial appointment as trained Intermediate Arts. The Hon’ble Bench considered the Government order dated 15th December 1976 and held that the petitioners before the Bench were entitled to seniority in the grade of trained Graduate from the date they entered the service in the grade of Intermediate Arts. 25. The above view we have taken is contrary to the aforesaid binding precedent. The judicial propriety requires that we should refer the present Appeal to a larger Bench for the resolution of the matter at issue. However, as we are of the opinion that the petitioner has approached this Court for resolution of a stale claim and that the petition deserves to be dismissed on the grounds of delay, laches and acquiescence, we do not refer this Appeal to the larger Bench. However, the opinion expressed by us may not be treated as a binding precedent, the matter may be referred for resolution by a larger Bench in appropriate case. 26. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow this Appeal. The impugned order dated 6th May 2010 made by the learned single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 250 of 2010 is set aside. C.W.J.C. No. 250 of 2010 is dismissed.