JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- "1(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the office order contained in memo no. 3404 dated 21.7.2012 issued under the signature of the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Siwan, by which he has rejected the claim of the petitioner without considering the order dated 29.7.2011 passed by Hon'ble High Court in L.P.A. No. 1801 of 2010 (Radhey Shyam Pathak versus the State of Bihar and others). (ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus for commanding and directing the respondent authorities concerned to provide B.A. trained scale to the petitioner with effect from the date his juniors have been granted i.e. with effect from 1.6.1975 and to give substantive promotion to the post of headmaster with effect from the date juniors to the petitioner with effect from the date juniors to the petitioner has been promoted as headmaster with all consequential benefits." 3. Mr. Umesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of promotion in the B.A. Trained Pay-Scale on the post of Headmaster, has submitted that the District Programme Officer (Establishment), while passing the impugned order, has not at all taken into account the observations made by this Court in the order dated 29.7.2011 in LPA No. 1801 of 2010. In this regard, he has concentrated on the aspect that the main plea of the petitioner that juniors to him were granted promotion in the B.A. Trained Pay-Scale on the post of Headmaster in the year 1975 has not at all been taken into consideration. 4. Mr. Mishra has also placed reliance on a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Amrendra Kumar Singh Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2008(4)PLJR 592 as well as yet another judgment of the learned single Judge in the case of Harendra Baitha Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2011(3)BLJ 35. Additionally, he has also relied on an unreported judgment of this Court dated 6.8.2009 in CWJC No. 8935 of 2009 (Raghuwar Rai Vs. reported in 2008(4)PLJR 592 as well as yet another judgment of the learned single Judge in the case of Harendra Baitha Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2011(3)BLJ 35. Additionally, he has also relied on an unreported judgment of this Court dated 6.8.2009 in CWJC No. 8935 of 2009 (Raghuwar Rai Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) as well as another unreported order dated 27.7.2010 in CWJC No. 1732 of 2003 in the case of Ramdeo Rai Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.). Finally, he has also referred to an order of the Division Bench of this court dated 22.1.2014 in LPA No. 774 of 2013 (Kameshwar Tiwary Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.). 5. Per contra, Mr. A.K.Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the State, while referring to the facts mentioned in the counter affidavit, has submitted that the petitioner's claims for such promotion is not only belated but in fact even unsustainable on facts as has been fully explained in the impugned order wherein a large number of Teachers senior to the petitioners were not given promotion in the B.A. Trained Pay-Scale for want of vacancy. He has also explained that the case of the respondent no.6, Ramajee Prasad, is clearly distinguishable wherein the promotion to him in fact was given to him only by way of complying a direction of this Court. 6. Mr. Upadhyaya in fact has also gone to explain that the whole concept of promotion as coined by the petitioner in the B.A. Trained Pay-Scale merely because the petitioner had acquired qualification of Graduation while continuing in the service is not justified, inasmuch as, from 1971 onwards and till 1986 in the primary school, there were three tiers of post of teachers, namely, the basic grade of matric trained teacher, the next promotional post of the I.A. trained teachers and finally the B.A. trained teachers. As a matter of fact, earlier there was a post only of Head Teacher and not even the Headmaster in the case of Primary School and Middle School came into existence in the year 1986. 7. He has further gone to explain that even such promotion of the Matric Trained Teacher on the post of I.A. Trained Teacher was not automatic because in every school, there were only two sanctioned posts of I.A./I.Sc. 7. He has further gone to explain that even such promotion of the Matric Trained Teacher on the post of I.A. Trained Teacher was not automatic because in every school, there were only two sanctioned posts of I.A./I.Sc. trained teacher and that too on the basis of strength of students in Class 7 & 8. According to Mr. Upadhayay, there was no separate post of Headmaster beyond B.A. Trained Teacher because in every school, there was only one sanctioned post of B.A./B.Sc. trained teacher and one who was promoted on the post of B.A. trained teacher was designated as a Headmaster. 8. According to the learned counsel for the State, at this stage, after a lapse of almost more than 47 years, the claim of the petitioner to promote him in the B.A. Trained Scale of pay with effect from 1.6.1975 would be wholly impermissible either on fact or in law because in this 47 years, the whole concept of cadre of teachers in the primary school have undergone a radical change specially on account of statutory rules framed in the year 1993 and followed by another statutory rules in the year 2011. He has in this regard submitted that the petitioner, who has retired from service on 30.6.2005 and all his retirement benefit on the basis of last pay drawn by him has been paid to him and his such prayer for reopening his case of promotion which in turn may affect the entire chain of promotion and unsettle the events which have taken place some 35 to 40 years back is wholly unsustainable either on facts or in law. 9. Before this Court would go into the merit of respective submissions of both the parties it must take into account some more relevant facts which would be necessary to be noticed in order to decide the claim of the petitioner. 10. The petitioner when he was appointed in a privately managed school, Gaighat in the year 1960, he was a bare matriculate. As a matter of fact, the petitioner had acquired his teachers training qualification only in the year 1966. On the basis of his becoming trained in 1966, he was given matric trained pay-scale by the Managing Committee. He himself has claimed in paragraph no.6 of the writ application that his school infact was taken over by the State Government with effect from 1.1.1971. 11. On the basis of his becoming trained in 1966, he was given matric trained pay-scale by the Managing Committee. He himself has claimed in paragraph no.6 of the writ application that his school infact was taken over by the State Government with effect from 1.1.1971. 11. According to the petitioner, a seniority list was published in the year 1974 in which he was placed at serial no.16 and respondent no.6 was placed at serial no.20. The petitioner does not have a complete copy of such seniority list and he has come out with one page which incidentally bears the signature of the petitioner himself. This seniority list is wholly unauthentic and on the basis of this seniority list, the petitioner cannot claim that he was senior to the respondent no.6. The petitioner does not have a complete copy of such seniority list and he has come out with one page which incidentally bears the signature of the petitioner himself. This seniority list is wholly unauthentic and on the basis of this seniority list, the petitioner cannot claim that he was senior to the respondent no.6. As a matter of fact, from reading of the truncated one page of the alleged seniority list, it would also be clear that it was described as "Anukram Suchi" which was arranged in respect of such teachers who had either the qualification of I.A. or B.A., inasmuch as, its heading reads as follows:- d0 f'k{kd dk uke fo|ky; dk uke vapy fu;qfDr frfFk ;ksX;rk 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 Jh 'k=q/ku flag e/; fo0 :dqUnhiqj njkSnk 22-4-46 lkfgR;yadkj 69 2 Jh jk/ksyky izlkn e/; fo0 gFkxkbZ cM+gfj;k 1-2-55 ]] 72 3 Jh vCnwy ekWxuh e/; fo0 gjfn;k ** 1-3-55 ch0,054 4 Jh foUnk ef.k frokjh pdjh njkSyh 1-1-56 ]] 65 5 Jh oS/kukFk feJ mek'kadj m0 izk0 fo0 egkjktxat egkjktxat 1-2-56 ]] 66 6 Jh Hktu jk; fu0izk0 fi0 delMk nkjkSank 15-1-57 ]] 72 7 Jh ekSykthe gqlSu e0fo0/kukSrh nkjksxk uxj j?kqukFkiqj 16-1-57 ]] 69 8 Jh jke vorkj nwcs e0 fo0 udq:y nkjkSank 16-7-57 ]] 68 9 Jh jkek izlkn flag m0e0fo0flagkSrk oxjk egkjktxat 1-1-58 ]] 64 10 Jh lR; ukjk;.k eqDr e0fo0fu[krh [kwnZ j?kqukFkiqj 22-4-58 ]] 65 11 Jh xksj[k ukFk flag e0 fo0 gjfn;k cM+gfj;k 8-9-58 ]] 66 12 Jh xksj[k ukFk pkS/kjh e0 fo0 ojoka vkUnj 8-12-59 ]] 70 13 Jh txnh'k jkor e0 fo9 iukSrh nkjksxk uxj j?kqukFkiqj 19-3-60 ]] 73 14 Jh uFkquh izlkn m0izk0 djikfy;k xksjs;kdksBh 22-3-60 ]] 67 15 Jh uUn dqekj flag u0izk0fo0fHkMjDr nkjkSank 18-5-60 ]] 69 16 Jh jk/ks';ke ikBd e0fo0 iposfu;k njkSayh 20-5-60 ]] 69 17 Jh nRrk ns; izlkn e0 fo0 flagkSrk caxjk egkjktxat 18-7-60 ]] 67 18 Jh jktoYyh izlkn e0 fo0 dkSfM+;k Hkxokuiqj gkV 24-4-61 ]] 67 19 Jh eks[krkj izlkn e0 fo0 egEenk ]] 6-6-61 ]] 68 20 Jh jketh izlkn e0fo0 yn~/kh xksjs;kdksBh 9-6-61 ]] 70 21 Jh jkesnso izlkn ;kno e0 fo0 uoknk j?kqukFkiqj 1-7-61 ]] 71 22 Jh e`xjkt jk; e0 fo0 HkjkSyh vkUnj 4-7-61 ]] 62 23 Jh ijes'oj feJ e0 fo0 mtk; nkjkSank 5-7-61 ]] 68 24 Jh d`".knso iz0 flag ,0 e0 fo0 cM+dkxkao ip:[kh 6-7-61 ]] 71 25 Jh ikjl ukFk Bkdqj e0fo0coukxat nkjkSank 6-7-61 ]] 69 26 Jh ;ksxsUnz izlkn oekZ fl0izk0 fo0 gfjgkal gqlSuxat gqlSuxat 24-7-61 ]] 72 27 Jh ok.kh Hkw"k.k feJ e0ro0 pSuiqj lhejk xksjs;kdksBh xkSjs;kdksBh 19-1-62 ]] 69 12. Thus, if this document is given a correct meaning, it was a mere compilation of the name of the teachers who had acquired qualification of either intermediate or graduation. It is here that one will have to examine his stand with this list allegedly of the year 1974 which was to be prepared in terms of the Government instruction that had required that promotion was to be given to a matric trained teacher initially to the post of I.A. trained teacher and only I.A. trained teacher could be promoted to the post of B.A. trained teacher. It is not on record and neither the petitioner has been able to show it from any document that respondent no.6 had not been given I.A. trained pay-scale prior to the petitioner. As a matter of fact, it is the case of the petitioner that he was given promotion on the post of I.A. trained teacher under the order of the District Superintendent of Education vide memo no. 2774-77 dated 4.5.1982 with effect from 13.3.1982. Thus, if the respondent no.6 was already I.A. trained teacher, his claim for promotion in the year 1975 on the post of B.A. trained teacher could not have been ignored either on fact or in law. 13. In this regard, the government decision of the Director, Primary Education cum Deputy Secretary of the Education Department addressed to the District Education Officer, all District Superintendent of Education, all Sub-Divisional Circle Officer cum Municipal Education Officer contained in memo no. 7/M-S-7-0400/69 f'k0 2500 dated 19.4.1973 and yet another letter no. 7/M-7-0400/69 f'k0 dated 30.7.1973 available in Malhotra Compilation of fcgkj jkT; izkjfEHkd f'k{kk] fof/k ,oa fo/kku , 4th Supplementary Edition, 2011 need to be taken note of wherein it was clearly provided by the Government that the post of I.A. trained teacher in a matric school created under the government guideline dated 15.5.1971 had to be filled up by preparation of separate Anukram Suchi which had to be approved by the Director, Primary Education. Annexure-1 the alleged seniority list claimed by the petitioner definitely does not refer to any such approval of the Director, Primary Education and can hardly be treated to an authentic document to substantiate the claim of the petitioner that he was senior to the respondent no.6. Annexure-1 the alleged seniority list claimed by the petitioner definitely does not refer to any such approval of the Director, Primary Education and can hardly be treated to an authentic document to substantiate the claim of the petitioner that he was senior to the respondent no.6. As a matter of fact, the moment the petitioner had accepted his promotion in the I.A. trained pay-scale with effect from 19.3.1982, his claim for promotion in the B.A. trained pay-scale would emanate only on the basis of his seniority in the I.A. trained pay-scale. 14. This would become more clear from the government resolution dated 15.12.1976 which was issued immediately after the Bihar Non-Governmental Elementary School Take-Over and Control Act, 1976 (Bihar Act of 30 of 1976) under which all the schools were deemed to have been taken-over with effect from 1.1.1971. 14. This would become more clear from the government resolution dated 15.12.1976 which was issued immediately after the Bihar Non-Governmental Elementary School Take-Over and Control Act, 1976 (Bihar Act of 30 of 1976) under which all the schools were deemed to have been taken-over with effect from 1.1.1971. In the aforesaid government decision dated 15.12.1976 issued under Section 8 of the 1976 Act, the provision relating to promotion from Matric trained to I.A. trained and I.A. trained to B.A. trained was clearly defined in the following terms:- ^^¼AAA½ izksUufr 1- eSfVzd izf'kf{kr osrueku ds inksa dks lh/kh fu;qfDr }kjk Hkjk tk,xkA ;fn dksbzZ d;Zjr f'k[kd eSfVzd izf'kf{kr gks x, gksa] rks mUgsa eSfVzd izf'kf{kr gksus dh frfFk ls eSfVzd izf'kf{kr dk osrueku fn;k tk,xkA 2- ¼d½ vkbZ0,0 izf'kf{kr osrueku ds fjDr inksa dks ¼oRrZeku esa dk;Zjr f'k{kdksa ls½ izksUufr }kjk Hkjk tk;sxkA ¼[k½ Lukrd izf'kf{kr osrueku ds fjDr in Hkh vxys vkns'k rd ¼oRrZeku esa dk;Zjr f'k{kdksa ls½ izksUufr }kjk Hkjk tk;sxkA ¼x½ eSfVzd izf'kf{kr osrueku esa izf'kf{kr vkbZ0,0@vkbZ0,l&lh0@vkbZ dkWe@Lukrd [kaM&1 rFkk Lukrd izf'kf{kr f'k{kdksa dks ¼izFke fu;qfDr dh frfFk dh ojh;rk ds dze esa½ vkbZ0,0@vkbZ0,l&lh0@vkbZ0 dkWe@Lukrd ikVZ&1 izf'kf{kr osrueku dh miyC/k fjfDr;ksa ij izksUufr nh tk;sxhA ¼?k½ baVjehfM,V izf'kf{kr osrueku esa inLFk izf'kf{kr f'k{kdksa dks mudh izFke fu;qfDr frfFk ds ojh;rk&dze esa Lukrd izf'kf{kr osrueku dh miyc/k fjfDr;ka ij izksUufr nh tk;sxhA ¼M+½ ojh;rk dk vk/kkj fof/kor fu;qfDr dh izFke fu;qfDr dh frfFk ekuk tk;xkA dbZ f'k{kdksa dh fu;qfDr frfFk ,d leku jgus ij mudh mPprj ;ksX;rk] vkilh ojh;rk dk vk/kkj gksxha mPprj ;ksX;rk Hkh dbz f'k{kdksa ds leku jgus ij mudh tUe frfFk vkilh ojh;rk dk fu.kZk;d gksxhA ¼p½ efgyk ,oa iq:"k f'k{kdksa dh ojh;rk lwph ,d lkFk cukbZ tk,xhA ¼N½ iwoZor nsgkrh ,oa 'kgjh {ks=ksa dh vuqdze lwph vyx&vyx cusxha f'k{kdksa dh lsok lekfIr ij nsgkrh ,oa 'kgjh {ks=ksa dh lfEefyr vuqdze lwph cusxhA ¼t½ izfro"kZ 31 fnlEcj rd ;ksX;rk izkIr f'k{kdksa dh ojh;rk lwph] nwljs o"kZ Qjojh ds var rd rS;kj dh tk,xh vkSj blh lwph ls vuqeksnu ds ckn ml o"kZ esa ¼1 vizsy ls 31 ekpz rd½ miyC/k fjfDr;ksa ij ojh;rk dze esa izksUufr nh tk,xhA og lwph dsoy mlh foRrh; o"kZ rd izHkkoh jgsxhA bl izdkj izR;sd o"kZ 31 fnlEcj rd ;ksX;rk izkIr f'k{kdksa dh ojh;rk lwph cukbZ tk;sxh vkSj ml lwph ls mlds ckn nwljs o"kZ esa miyC/k fjfDr;ksa ij ojh;rk dze esa izksUufr nh tk,xhA 3- vuqlwfpr tkfr ,oa vuqlwfpr tu tkfr ds f'k{kd ljdkj }kjk fu/kkZfjr izfr'kr ds vkj{k.k ds vk/kkj ij izksUufr ik,axsA 4- ojh;rk lwph ,oa fjfDr;ksa dh lwph dk tkap ,oa mudk vuqeksnu fuEukafdr inkf/kdkfj;ksa dh ,d lfefr djsxh%& ¼1½ ftyk fodkl inkf/kdkjh ------------------ v/;{k ¼2½ ftyk f'k{kk v/kh{kd --------------------- lfpoA ¼3½ ftyk f'k{kk inkf/kdkjh -------------------- lnL;A ¼4½ ftyk fo|ky; fujhf{kdk ------------------- lnL;A ¼5½ lacf/kr ftys ds ojh; vuqeaMy f'k{kk inkf/kdkjh ;k ladwy okys ftys ds ojh;re {k=h; f'k{kk inkf/kdkjh -------------------- lnL;A ¼6½ lacaf/kr ftys ds ojh;re fo|ky; mi fujh{kd vFkok ladwy okys ftys ds ojh;re lgk;d {ks=h; f'k{kk inkf/kdkjh ------------------------ lnL;A 5- lwph ds vuqeksnu ds i'pkr ftyk f'k{kk v/kh{kd@uxjikfydk f'k{kk inkf/kdkjh lfefr }kjk vuqeksfnr lwph ls miyC/k fjfDr;ksa ij ojh;rk dze eas izksUufr vkns'k fuxZr djsaxsA 6- ojh;rk lwph ftl o"kZ dh cukbZ tk,xh] ml o"kZ dh ojh;rk lwph nwljs o"kZ ds Qjojh ekg rd rS;kj dj yh tk,xh vkSj ekpZ ekg rd lfefr dk vuqeksnu izkIr dj fy;k tk;sxkA 7- vuqeksfnr lwph ls ojh;rk de esa ojh;rk f'k{kdksa dks 1 vizsy ls izksUufr nwljs o"kZ ds ekpZ ekg rd nh tk;xhA 8- vuqeksfnr lwph ds ftl f'k{kd dk dk;Z izekf.kr :i esa vlarks"kizn gks vkSj ftUgsa fdlh vfHk;ksx esa nafMr fd;k x;k gks] mUgsa de ls de ml o"kZ izksUufr ughas nh tk;xhA vU; dh izksUufr ojh;rk ds vk/kkj ij nh tk,xhA 9- 'kgjh ,oa nsgkrh {ks=ksa esa iwoZor izksUufr vyx vyx nh tk;sxhA** 15. From reading of the aforesaid statutory instruction, two things are absolutely clear firstly that there was no concept or provision for direct promotion from the post of matric trained teacher to B.A. trained teacher and secondly the seniority list was to be prepared by a Committee of six officials and the promotion was to be again given by the Committee and not by the District Superintendent of Education alone. 16. The aforesaid government decision was yet again modified by another government decision contained in letter no. 16. The aforesaid government decision was yet again modified by another government decision contained in letter no. G/M 7-074/76 f'k0 1897 dated 30.7.1977 issued by the Education Commissioner wherein the manner of preparation of gradation list and promotion was laid down as follows:- ^^AA- f'k{kdksa dh izkasUufr ,oa vuqdze lwph dk fuekZ.k 1- osrueku ds :i esa f'k{kdksa dh ,d vuqdze lwph izFke fu;qfDr frfFk ds dze eas ftyk f'k{kk v/kh{kd rS;kj dj eqfnzr djk;saxsA bl vuqdze lwph dks izksUufr ds fy, xfBr lfefr }kjk vuqeksfnr djk;k tk;sxkA 2- vuqdze lwph dh ;g eqfnzr izfr izkjafHkd f'k{kk lfefr ds lHkh lnL;] ftyk inkf/kdkjh] vuqeaMy inkf/kdkjh] iz[kaM fodkl inkf/kdkjh] ftyk izkFkfed la?k ds ea=h ,oa ftyk lEidZ inkf/kdkjh ds ikl Hksth tk,xhA 3- vkbZ0,0 izf'kf{kr ,oa ch0,0 izf'kf{kr osrueku ds inksa ij izksUufr ds fy, fu;ekuqlkj tks izfro"kZ ojh;rk lwph ls cukbZ tk;xh og mijksDr vuqdze lwph ds vk/kkj ij cusxh ijUrq bl ojh;rk lwph esa ;ksX;rk c<kus okys f'k{kdks ads uke Hkh izFke fu;qfDR frfFk ds vk/kkj ij vafdr jgssxsA izfro"kZ cukbZ xbZ bl ojh;rk lwph dh izfr Hkh mijksDr inkf/kdkfj;ksa ds ikl Hksth tk;sxhA 4- vkbZ0,0 izf'kf"kr ,oa ch0,0 izf'kf{kr osrueku ds inksa dks Hkjus ds fy, izfro"kZ tks ojh;rk lwph cusxh mldh tkap ,oa mudk vuqeksnu ftyk lfefr }kjk ns; tk;sxkA bl osrueku ds inksa dh miyc/k fjfDr;ksa ij ojh;rk lwph ls f'k{kdksa ds inLFkkiu dk fu.kZ; Hkh lfefr }kjk fy;k tk;sxkA 5- inLFkkiu ds fu.kZ; ds nwljs fnu ftyk f'k{kk v/kh{kd izksUufr dk vkns'k i= fuxZr dj fucaf/kr Mkd ls f'k{kdksa ,oa vU; inkf/kdkfj;ksa ds ikl Hkst nsaxsA irs lkQ&lkQ ,oa Bhd&Bhd fy[ks x;s gSa bldh tkap Lo;a ftyk f'k{kk v/kh{kd djsaxasA 6- ;fn izksUufr lEca/kh fjfDr;ksa dks iwoZ ds o"kksaZ esa Hkjh ugha xbZ gks rks o"kZ dze esa ojh;rk lwph rS;kj dj mlds nwljs o"kZ esa miyc/k fjfDr;ksa ij izksUufr nh tk;sxhA AAA] izoj dksfV dk osrueku ¼d½ izoj dksfV ds osrueku ds fy, fu;ekuqlkj ojh;rk lwph izfro"kZ rS;j dj rn~uqlkj bl osrueku ds fofHkUu fu/kkZfjr inksa ij ojh;rk dze esa izoj dksfV dk osrueku Lohd`r fd;k tk;sxkA ¼[k½ izoj dksfV ds osrueku ds fy, rS;kj dh xbZ ojh;rk lwph izfro"kZ rS;kj dj mijksDr lHkh inkf/kdkfj;ksa ds ikl Hksth tk;sxhA ¼x½ izoj dksfV ds osrueku esa izfro"kZ fdu&fdu f'k{kdksa dks osrueku fn;k tk;sxk bldk Hkh fu.kZ; izoj dksfV osrueku ds fy, xfBr lfefr }kjk fy;k tk;sxkA ;g lfefr bl lwph dh tkap ,oa fof/kor vuqeksnu viuh cSBd esa nsxhA ¼?k½ f'k{kd fo'ks"k dks izoj dksfV ds osrueku dh Lohd`fr lfefr }kjk fn, tkus ds nwljs gh fnu ftyk f'k{kk v/kh{kd osrueku dh Lohd`fr lfefr dk vkns'k lacaf/kr f'k{kd dks fucaf/kr Mkd ls Hkst nsaxsA fyQkQas ds irs dh tkap Lo;a ftyk f'k{kk v/kh{kd djsaxsA** 17. As a matter of fact, while before the promotion of the petitioner in the I.A. trained pay-scale on 4.5.1982, the government decision for giving promotion had once again undergone changed by the notification no. S/W 4-01715/80 f'k0 1938 dated 21.8.1981 wherein not only the qualification for the promotion in the channel was notified but also different pay-scales were prescribed by specifying the number of possible posts in promotional B.A. trained and I.A. trained pay-scale. The post of teacher in fact was classified in six grades and the promotion was to be given from grade 1 to grade 2 and onward up to grade 6 as was also clearly specified in the subsequent government notification no. S/W 3-01715/80 f'k0 2060 dated 15.9.1981. These notifications are also available in the compilation of Bihar School Law, Volume-I, Elementary Education of Malhotra Publishers, 1st Edition, 2012 at page-186 to 190. From a conjoint reading of all these decisions right from 1974 onwards, there can be no dispute at least on this aspect that the petitioner's matric trained teacher at the time of his take-over, even if he may have qualification of being intermediate, graduation or post graduate, he was entitled to be initially promoted only on the post of I.A. trained teacher whereafter on completion of the period of Kalawadhi, he could have been promoted on the post of B.A. trained teacher. 18. Mere possessing the qualification of I.A. or B.A. with training in primary and middle school has never been the criteria for giving promotion because every year the teachers, having lower qualification of being matric trained on improving their qualification, could become entitled for promotion on the post of I.A. trained teacher and for them separate yearly gradation list was to be prepared. Thus, a matric trained teacher also even if he became intermediate or graduate during his service period was not entitled for automatic promotion on the post of B.A. trained teacher the day he had passed the B.A. examination, inasmuch as, he had to earn his promotion despite his acquiring qualification of graduation, firstly on I.A. trained teacher and, thereafter, on the post of B.A. trained teacher. Things thus understood in this manner, would really expose the claim of the petitioner because he does not dispute that he had been promoted in the post of I.A. trained teacher only on 4.5.1982 whereas respondent no.6 had been promoted on the post of B.A. trained teacher pursuant to a direction of this Court in CWJC No. 141 of 1978. 19. At this stage, one will have to also keep in mind that CWJC No. 141 of 1978 was filed by the petitioner along with Gorakh Nath Chaudhary, Jagdish Rout. Let it be noted that the name of Gorakh Nath Chaudahry in annexure-1 to the alleged seniority list of 1974 produced by the petitioner in truncated manner is at serial no.12, the name of Jagdish Raut is at serial no.13 and the name of Ramajee Prasad respondent no.6 is at serial no.20. There is an order of promotion, however, in the B.A. trained pay-scale dated 28.12.1975 as contained in Annexure-2 which go to show an entirely different picture because the seniority list number of Gorakh Nath Chaudhary of the year 1974 was shown to be 14 and that of the year 1975 to be at number 2. Similarly, Jagdish Rout was at serial no.15 of 1974 gradation list and serial no.3 of 1975 list. As a matter of fact, if Annexure-1 the 1974 gradation list wherein the name of Gorah Nath Chaudhary and Jagdish Rout were placed at serial no.12 and 13 is strictly taken into account along with the respondent no.6 at serial no.20, the order of promotion relied by the petitioner as contained in Annexure-2 does not match. The seniority position of the respondent no.6 in 1974 gradation list as per the order of promotion was 19. 20. The whole thing in fact gets clear on a comparative reading of Annexure-1 & 2 and it appears to this Court that after a draft gradation list was prepared in the year 1974, the same had undergone a changed and in the year 1975, a fresh gradation list was prepared in which Satyanarain Bhakt became serial no.1 who was at serial no.10 of 1974 list and likewise the positions were changed and promotion was given only to 11 teachers on 28.12.1975 in seriatim from serial no. 1 to 11 of that gradation list. 1 to 11 of that gradation list. The petitioner however has been trying to make out capital of that 1974 gradation list which is not only truncated and unauthenticated but also was never acted upon for any purpose, inasmuch as, from reading of the order of promotion of the respondent no.6 as contained in Annexure-2 dated 28.12.1975, it would become very clear that there was a revised seniority list which was acted upon in giving promotion. 21. This becomes further clear because as many as 9 persons admittedly above the petitioner in 1974 gradation list such as Shatrughan Singh, Radhelal Prasad, Abdul Mangni, Vinda Mani Tiwari, Vaidhnath Mishra, Bhajan Rai, Maulajim Hussain, Ram Avtar Dubey and Rama Prasad Singh having serial no. 1 to 9 respectively as well as Gorakh Nath Singh at serial no.11 of the petitioner’s seniority list of 1974 were also not given promotion in the B.A. trained pay-scale. A question would be whether they were not senior to the petitioner? 1 to 9 respectively as well as Gorakh Nath Singh at serial no.11 of the petitioner’s seniority list of 1974 were also not given promotion in the B.A. trained pay-scale. A question would be whether they were not senior to the petitioner? The answer to that lies in the order of promotion of respondent no.6 and others as contained in annexure-2 which clearly lays down that such of the teachers who had passed their B.A. examination without the subject of English were left out from the zone of consideration, inasmuch as, their order of promotion had read as follows:- dk;kZy; ftyk f'k{kk v/kh{kd] flokuA dk;kZy; vkns'k f'k{kk foHkkx ds Kkikad&374 fnukad 29-5-63 ,oa funs'kd fo|kyh; f'k{kk lg la;qDr lfpo f'k{kk foHkkx fcgkj ds Kkikad 4927 fnukad 24-9-74 ds vuqlkj fcuk vaxzsth ls mRrh.kZrk izkIr f'k{kdksa dks NksM+dj uhps fy[ks f'k{kdksa dks 1-6-75 ls ch0,0 izf'kf{kr ,oa vkbZ0,0 izf'kf{kr ds osrueku esa izksUur fd;k tkrk gSA ch0,0 izf'kf{kr osrueku esa izksUur f'k{kdksa dh lwph 1974 ds vuqdze lwph dh la[;k dzekad f'k{kd dk uke fo|ky; ds irs ds lkFk ;ksX;rk vapy 13 1 Jh lR;ukjk;.k HkDr] e/; fo|ky; fu[krh [kwnZ ch0,0 izf'kf{kr j?kqukFkiqj 14 2 Jh xkSj[k ukFk pkS/kjh e0fo0 ojoka ]] ]] vkUnj 15 3 Jh txnh'k jko e/; fo0 /kukSrh nkjksxk uxj ]] ]] j?kqukFkiqj 16 4 Jh uFkquh izlkn mPp izkFkfed fo0 cfy;k ]] ]] xksjs;kdksBh 17 5 uUn dqekj flag fu0izk0fo- fiM+jFkw [kwn ]] ]] nkjkSank 18 6 Jh nRr |s; izlkn e0fo0 flagkSrk caxjk ]] ]] egkjktxat 19 7 Jh jktcyh izlkn e0 fo0 dkSfM+;k ]] ]] Hkxokuiqj 20 8 Jh eks[rkj izlkn e0 fo0 dkSfM+;k egenk ]] ]] Hkxokuiqj 21 9 Jh jkekth izlkn e0 fo|ky; y|h ]] ]] xksjs;kdksBh 22 10 Jh jkenso izlkn ;kno e0 fo0 uoknk ]] ]] j?kqukFkiqj 23 11 Jh Hk`xqjkt jk; e0fo0HkjkSyh ]] ]] vkUnj 22. The petitioner was left out in the year 1975 but he did not file any writ application and claims that he was filing representation right from 1975 onwards. As a matter of fact, the petitioner had brought on record Prashtavit (Proposed) Gradation List to show that he was running at serial no.9 in such gradation list. The petitioner was left out in the year 1975 but he did not file any writ application and claims that he was filing representation right from 1975 onwards. As a matter of fact, the petitioner had brought on record Prashtavit (Proposed) Gradation List to show that he was running at serial no.9 in such gradation list. What is really interesting to note here is that in that gradation list, those who were not senior to him like Sahodar Singh, Lalji Singh, Ramayan Singh, Divakar Mishra, Parmanand Pathak, Chandrama Singh, Rameshwar Prasad and Vishwanath Dubey do not find their place in 1974 gradation list. Obviously, there is some thing amiss which at least has not been explained by the petitioner as with regard to so-called claim of seniority. The claim of the petitioner that he kept on filing representation from 30.12.1975 has again to be understood in the context that he had claims that six teachers junior to him were promoted on 30.12.1975. This Court has very carefully perused Annexure-1 and does not find any one who was promoted on 30.12.1975 could be said to be junior save and except the respondent no.6 but, then, whether the respondent no.6 had already earned his promotion on the post of I.A. trained teacher has not been clarified by the petitioner. 23. It is this crucial aspect which become very material when this Court would examine the impugned order herein the District Education Officer, Siwan has given a special emphasis on the aspect that several senior teachers to the petitioner could not be promoted on the B.A. Trained Pay-scale due to want of vacant sanctioned post and unfortunately the petitioner is himself guilty of suppressing the material fact because the impugned order also contains an illustrative list of senior teachers to the petitioners who could not be promoted in the B.A. trained pay-scale as would be apparent from reading of the impugned order and particularly its underlined paragraph no.7 which reads as follows:- ^^7] buls vusdksa ojh; f'k{kd lsok fuo`Rr gks pqds gSa ftUgsa ch ,0 izf'kf{kr dk osrueku ,oa e/; fo0 ds iz/kkuk/;kid ds in ij izksUufr ugh fey ldh FkhA mnkgj.k Lo:i dqNsd f'k{kdksa dh ojh;rk laca/kh lwph layXuA** (underlining for emphasis) 24. The petitioner however while filing this writ application and enclosing the impugned order has cleverly omitted to produce the aforesaid illustrative list of teachers senior to the petitioner who too were not promoted on the post of B.A. trained teacher due to lack of vacant sanctioned posts. Thus the selective manner in which the petitioner has produced not only alleged truncated seniority list of 1974 but even the truncated and incomplete impugned order would make him guilty of suppression of material facts leading to the fatal consequence of dismissal of this writ petition on this ground alone. 25. This Court, therefore, will have no hesitation that the claim of seniority of the petitioner over the respondent no.6 firstly has not been established and secondly the promotion of the respondent no.6 and others in fact on 1.6.1975 was cancelled and that became subject matter of CWJC No. 141 of 1978. That order of this Court dated 28.2.1979 has again some thing more to show than what has been projected by the petitioner, inasmuch as, that was a consent order for restoring the promotion of the respondent no.6 and two others who were the petitioners in CWJC No. 141 of 1978, and the order of this Court dated 28.2.1979 reads as follows:- "In the High Court of Judicature at Patna Order sheet CWJC No. 141/78 Shri Gorakhnath Chaudhry and others ---- petitioner Versus The State of Bihar and others --- Respondent In terms of the order dated 20.2.1979 a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent 1 to 3 in which it is stated in paragraph 2 that in view of an order of the Govt. copy of which is Annexure A, the petitioners will be promoted when vacancy occurs, in future at the earliest. However, the learned Govt. pleader no3 states that the petitioners will be promoted from the first April 1979. Annexure 3 appended to the application refers to an order dated 28.12.75 by which the petitioners and others were declared to have been promoted to the B.A. trained scale from 1.6.75. In view of this order the respondents will consider the desirability of paying the petitioners. The salary of the scale of B.A. trained teachers from 1.6.75. By the consent of the parties, the application is accordingly disposed of. Sd./- B.S. Sinha" 26. In view of this order the respondents will consider the desirability of paying the petitioners. The salary of the scale of B.A. trained teachers from 1.6.75. By the consent of the parties, the application is accordingly disposed of. Sd./- B.S. Sinha" 26. This consent order confined to the case of the respondent no.6 cannot become the precedent for giving promotion to the petitioner on the post of B.A. trained teacher who after this order dated 28.2.1979 was actually given promotion, as per the prevalent government decisions as quoted above, from Matric Trained Pay-Scale to I.A. Trained Pay-Scale vide order dated 4.5.1982 which reads as follows:- dk;kZy; ftyk f'k{kk v/kh{kd] floku] dk;kZy; vkns'k Jh jk/ks';ke ikBd f'k{kd e/; fo|ky; iposfu;k] vapy&njkSyh dks vkbZ0 ,0 izf'kf{kr ds osrueku esa lgk;d f'k{kd ds in ij e/; fo|ky; xk;?kkV] vapy&j?kqukFkiqj eas izksUur dj inLFkkfir fd;k tkrk gSA izksUufr dk YkkHk fnukad 13-3-82 ls ns; gksxkA g0@& ftyk f'k{kk v/kh{kd] flokuA Kkikad&2774&77 floku] fnukad 4-5-82** 27. It thus becomes clear that the aforesaid order of promotion of the petitioner on the post of I.A. trained teacher on 4.5.1982 was given on consideration of his own representations as contained in Annexure-4 dated 25.3.1976 addressed to the R.D.D.E., Saharsa, Director, Primary Education, District Superintendent of Education, Siwan as also his subsequent representations dated 29.1.1980 and 30.1.1980. What is still very significant to note here that in this representation, the petitioner talks of appearing in the interview as also deleting of his name in the 1980 gradation list. The difficulty however is that the petitioner never moved this Court in this period alike the respondent no.6 and was satisfied with his promotion on the post of I.A. trained teacher. Therefore, even if the official respondents want to look into the records to find out the reason as to what has happened in the interview and why the name of the petitioner was not included, they would find no contemporaneous records to examine and explain the same as it would be impossible to expect that the Respondents would preserve records of each and every teachers for 25 to 45 years even when as per Records Manual the period of preservation of such documents is only five years. 28. 28. It is infact this aspect of delay which becomes material because the petitioner had never moved this Court in between 1976 to 2002 and his first writ application was filed only in the year 2007 being CWJC No. 8905 of 2002 which was dismissed by this Court by an order dated 21.6.2010 wherein following order was passed:- "Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “That this application is being filed for issuance of an appropriate writ or direction commanding the respondents to give B.A. trained scale to the petitioner with effect from the date his juniors have been granted i.e, with effect from 1.6.1975 and to give substantive promotion to the post of Head Master with effect from the date juniors to the petitioner has been promoted as Head Master with all consequential benefits.” For such a prayer which was made after 27 years of the alleged entitlement counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had been filing representations. He has also tried to make out a case of discrimination in the matter of demotion by way of granting B.Sc. trained pay scale as against one Ramji Prasad. In that context he has relied on truncated undated seniority list. He has also referred to Annexue-3 to show that though the said Ramji Prasad was given B.Sc. trained scale of pay by order of the District Superintendent of Education, Siwan contained in Memo No.3626-33 dated 29.5.1969, the same was modified after joining of the said seniority list by shifting the date of promotion of Ramji Prasad from 1st August, 1975 onwards. He has also referred to Annexures-5 and 6 to show that when certain details were also called for with regard to service history of the petitioner it would be deemed that the grievance of the petitioner was under examination. In this case admittedly grievance of the petitioner rests on the foundation of discrimination. Ramji Prasad the alleged junior has not been made party to this writ application. Moreover, from reading of Annexure-1 it is clear that this undated gradation list of the teachers of Siwan district is also not the basis for promotion of Ramji Prasad, who as noted above, has been granted promotion in the year 1967. Ramji Prasad the alleged junior has not been made party to this writ application. Moreover, from reading of Annexure-1 it is clear that this undated gradation list of the teachers of Siwan district is also not the basis for promotion of Ramji Prasad, who as noted above, has been granted promotion in the year 1967. Counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to produce any seniority list of 1967. In that view of the matter, the plea of discrimination which would entail any consequence going to the events of 1967 in the year 2010, would not either be admissible or mandated by law. That apart, the concept of granting B.Sc. trained scale is not automatic. One has to get the matric trained scale and after seniority intermediate pay scale and thereafter B.A. or B.Sc. trained scale. Here in this case there is no averment that the petitioner after acquiring qualification of intermediate had already given the I.A. trained scale prior to Ramji Prasad. In fact there is complete want of material in the writ application save and except in Annexure-7 claiming Ramji Prasad to be junior of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, this Court can neither hold that the petitioner was junior to Ramji Prasad nor it can go into the question of promotion granted to Ramji Prasad in his absence so as to bestow such promotion from the retrospective date to the petitioner. That being so, this Court would not find any merit in this application and the same is accordingly dismissed." 29. Let it be noted that when this order dated 21.6.2010 was made subject matter of appeal LPA No. 1801 of 2010, none of the findings recorded were reversed by the Division Bench but then a liberty was given to the petitioner to file representation before the competent authority for taking a decision without being influenced by the order of this Court dated 21.6.2010, which for the sake of clarity and convenience, is also quoted herein below:- "This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the order dated 21.06.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. 8995 of 2002 whereby the petition of the appellant has been dismissed. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, we dispose of this appeal with the liberty to the appellant to file representation before the competent authority, which shall be decided on merit within a month from the date of receipt/production of a certified copy of this order without being influenced by the order of the learned Single Judge." 30. The impugned order of this case dated 21.7.2012 in fact has been passed in compliance of the aforesaid order of this Court as has already been explained above wherein the authorities have gone to hold that the petitioner was not entitled to be promoted because a large number of teachers senior to him also could not be promoted on the post of B.A. trained teacher for want of vacancy. The petitioner, as indicated above has not only suppressed that part of the impugned order by not enclosing the illustrative list of teachers but has also again also not categorically denied this fact by making any averment that all the senior teachers to him had been given promotion in the B.A. trained pay-scale. 31. At this stage, one has to also keep in mind that on coming of the statutory rules of the year 1993 which was brought into force with effect from 1.1.1986, the post of I.A. trained teachers were given fixation benefit of two advance increments in the revised scale of pay. The post of B.A. trained teacher under 1993 Rules was made the promotional post of Matric Trained teacher and that is how the petitioner has been now cleverly trying to impress upon this Court that he should have been given the post of B.A. trained teacher. The petitioner very safely wants to make out a case that the validity of 1993 Rules was under challenge and was upheld by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Nath Prasad Singh Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2009(3)PLJR 384 wherein a direction was given for preparation of fresh gradation list and giving promotion from Matric Trained teacher to B.A. Trained Teacher. The petitioner however could not have earned advantage of the Full Bench judgment because that had contained a direction to prepare fresh gradation list separately for promotion to B.A. trained teacher and B.Sc. Trained Teacher whereafter new promotion rules were brought into force with effect from 2011 which still remains in vogue. 32. The petitioner however could not have earned advantage of the Full Bench judgment because that had contained a direction to prepare fresh gradation list separately for promotion to B.A. trained teacher and B.Sc. Trained Teacher whereafter new promotion rules were brought into force with effect from 2011 which still remains in vogue. 32. A question, therefore, arise if there was want of vacancy on account of which the petitioner and many of his senior teachers could not be promoted in the B.A. trained teacher till the date of retirement of the petitioner, can he be now allowed to turn the event of last three decades only because he was allowed to file a representation. In the considered opinion of this Court, filing of a representation in a dead cause could have given no relief to the petitioner, inasmuch as, it is in respect of such stale issues not capable of being revived in service jurisprudence that the Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. M.K. Sarkar reported in (2010) 2 SCC 59 wherein it was held as follows:- "15. When a belated representation in regard to a "stale" or "dead" issue/dispute is considered and decided, in compliance with a direction by the court/tribunal to do so, the date of such decision cannot be considered as furnishing a fresh cause of action for reviving the "dead" issue or time-barred dispute. The issue of limitation or delay and laches should be considered with reference to the original cause of action and not with reference to the date on which an order is passed in compliance with a court's direction. Neither a court's direction to consider a representation issued without examining the merits, nor a decision given in compliance with such direction, will extend the limitation, or erase the delay and laches." 33. Thus, only because a liberty was given to the petitioner to file a representation will not mean that he can revive the cause of action which was stale due to delay of at least 26 years between 30.12.1975 to 2002 when his first writ application was filed before this Court. Thus, only because a liberty was given to the petitioner to file a representation will not mean that he can revive the cause of action which was stale due to delay of at least 26 years between 30.12.1975 to 2002 when his first writ application was filed before this Court. As a matter of fact, the interparte order dated 21.6.2010 in CWJC No. 8995 of 2002 will still bind the petitioner because that order was not set aside by the Division Bench of this Court in the order dated 29.7.2011 in LPA No. 1801 of 2010. 34. The first writ application of the petitioner of the year 2002 as noted above in pursuance of which this writ application has been filed was itself held to be barred on account of unexplained delay and laches on the part of the petitioner, a principle which has been well settled even by the Apex Court in the case of Karnataka Power Corpn. Ltd. through its Chairman & Managing Director & Anr. Vs. K. Thangappan & Anr. reported in 2006(4) SCC 322 paragraph nos. 4 & 9 whereof reads as follows:- "9. It was stated in State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal [ (1986) 4 SCC 566 ] that the High Court in exercise of its discretion does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic. If there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. It was stated that this rule is premised on a number of factors. The High Court does not ordinarily permit a belated resort to the extraordinary remedy because it is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring, in its train new injustices, and if writ jurisdiction is exercised after unreasonable delay, it may have the effect of inflicting not only hardship and inconvenience but also injustice on third parties. It was pointed out that when writ jurisdiction is invoked, unexplained delay coupled with the creation of third-party rights in the meantime is an important factor which also weights with the High Court in deciding whether or not to exercise such jurisdiction." 35. This Court has even otherwise also carefully gone into the merit of the impugned order and does not find any error in the same. This Court has even otherwise also carefully gone into the merit of the impugned order and does not find any error in the same. It is very interesting to note that under the 2011 earlier Rules, for the post of B.A. trained teacher, such power of promotion was vested in the Promotion Committee headed by the District Education Officer but the petitioner surprisingly had filed his representation before the District Programme Officer (Establishment) who is only a member of the said Committee. Though the copy of the representation of the petitioner has not been produced in the writ application to show as to what issue he has raised but, then, the competent authority to grant promotion in the B.A. trained teacher under Rule 4 of 2011 Rules is the Promotion Committee consisting of five members headed by the District Education Officer in capacity of Chairman, District Programme Officer (Establishment) Member Secretary, a Deputy Collector headed by Collector of the District as a Member, the senior most Programme Officer and the Education Officer as another member and one officer of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe to be nominated by the Collector. Thus, if the petitioner was aggrieved, he had a remedy under 2011 Rules to move to the District Promotion Committee instead of filing this writ application. 36. The reliance placed by the petitioner on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Amrendra Kumar Singh (supra) is wholly misplaced. That was the case of time bound promotion and it was held that such time bound promotion was itself automatically created by the competent authority and the delay on the part of the petitioner was not fatal. Yet again, the case of Harendra Baitha (supra) referred to and relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner was in fact again a case of time bound promotion wherein the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench of Amrendra Kumar Singh (supra) was relied by the learned single Judge. The concept of time bound promotion under the government decision dated 30.12.1981 envisaging upgradation of the pay-scale on account of stagnation due to non-availability of post is in no way comparable in service jurisprudence to a regular promotion which the petitioner wants by way of his promotion in the B.A. trained pay-scale and on the post of Headmaster. The concept of time bound promotion under the government decision dated 30.12.1981 envisaging upgradation of the pay-scale on account of stagnation due to non-availability of post is in no way comparable in service jurisprudence to a regular promotion which the petitioner wants by way of his promotion in the B.A. trained pay-scale and on the post of Headmaster. Thus, whatever has been said by this Court in the context of time bound promotion in the case of Amrendra Kumar Singh and Harnedra Baitha (supra) will have no application in the facts of the present case. 37. Revering back to the three unreported judgments, this Court would firstly find that in the case of Raghuwar Rai(supra), nothing was decided save and except that an order was passed for considering the aspect as to whether the petitioner Raghuwar Rai was entitled for grant of B.A. trained pay-scale on account of promotion given to similarly situated teachers, namely, Sushila Kumari Sinha and Nirmala Devi. As a matter of fact, the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner even on an unreported judgment of Ramdeo Rai (supra) will be of no help and avail to the petitioner, inasmuch as, Ramdeo Rai had already moved this Court in CWJC No. 7056 of 1988 for claiming B.A. trained pay-scale along with one Chaturbhuj Prasad Singh who was granted B.A. trained pay-scale and the same was denied Ramdeo Rai and the plea of discrimination raised by the Ramdeo Rai was not at all explained by the respondent. It was under this circumstances that this Court in the case of Ramdeo Rai had held as follows:- "Thus, there was no case for the petitioner for being granted graduate trained pay scale inasmuch as he was never granted intermediate trained teacher scale of pay. It would be however difficult for this court to accept the said plea of the State for permanent denial of promotion of the petitioner in B.A. Trained Scale inasmuch as after 1993 the I.A. Trained Pay Scale did not remain in existence and therefore, even if the petitioner might not have been given the promotion in I.A. Trained Scale, he was still required to be considered for his being granted graduate trained Pay Scale. The fact that Chaturbhuj Prasad Singh was granted graduate trained pay scale in view of the order dated 10.05.1994 of this court in C.W.J.C. No. 7056 of 88 and the petitioner being the other petitioner of the same writ petition was left out also, does not stand to reason. That apart the petitioner’s plea that juniors to him were given graduate trained basic scale as asserted in para 26 of the writ petition, has not been replied by the respondents. Thus the petitioner has made out a case for a direction from this court to the Respondents for considering the case of the petitioner for promotion in the graduate trained scale on the ground that juniors to the petitioner were given such promotion. This court would also find that the Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna (Respondent no. 2) in his letter dated 26-11-2000 had directed the District Superintendent of Education, Vaishali to place the case of the petitioner in the meeting of the District Education Establishment Committee, but there is also no answer to this aspect in the counter affidavit as to whether the said order of the Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna was ever complied. This court therefore, would direct the District Superintendent of Education, Vaishali to place the matter relating to the promotion of the petitioner in Graduate Trained Scale before the District Education Establishment Committee and in the event if it is found that any junior to the petitioner was given such promotion, which ha snot been disturbed/cancelled till date, the date of promotion of the petitioner in the B.A. Trained Scale of pay will also be the same as was given to his junior." 38. In the case of the petitioner, it is the findings recorded by the District Programme Officer (Establishment) that though the petitioner was placed under the Matric Trained pay-scale in the year 1966, a large number of teachers who were placed in Matric Trained pay-scale even in 1965 should not be promoted in the B.A. trained pay-scale for want of vacancy and when even senior to the petitioner could not be promoted on the B.A. trained pay-scale and/or Headmaster, there was no question of the petitioner being given such retrospective promotion. Thus, the fact of the present case of the petitioner is entirely distinguishable to the case of Ramdeo Rai (supra). 39. Thus, the fact of the present case of the petitioner is entirely distinguishable to the case of Ramdeo Rai (supra). 39. Finally coming to the case of Kameshwar Tiwary (supra), it has been noted that the same related to grant of promotion in the Intermediate Trained pay-scale and when his juniors were granted I.Sc. trained pay-scale on 19.8.1995, he had moved this Court in CWJC No. 1513 of 2000 in which it was admitted by the respondents no.6 that Kameshwar Tiwary was wrongly denied promotion in the I.Sc. trained pay-scale but then he could not be promoted in the I.Sc. trained pay-scale because of its abolition in view of the 1993 Rules. As a matter of fact, it was the earlier findings recorded in favour of Kameshwar Tiwary which had weighed upon the Division Bench in coming to the contrary findings reversing the order of the learned single Judge by issuing a direction for grant of I.Sc. trained pay-scale. Kameshwar Tiwary was found to be vigilant unlike the petitioner who remained a mute spectator for a period over 27 years before filing of first writ application. Thus, whatever was held in the case of Kameshwar Tiwary also cannot be made applicable in the case of the petitioner. 40. Thus, for the reasons indicated above, this Court would not find any merit in this application so far it relates to retrospective promotion of the petitioner from 30.6.1975 the date on which respondent no.6 was promoted in the B.A. trained pay-scale. 41. Having held so, this Court must observe here that the petitioner as noted above has been given his I.A. trained pay-scale in 1982 on the basis of his being a Matric Trained teacher ever since 1966. 41. Having held so, this Court must observe here that the petitioner as noted above has been given his I.A. trained pay-scale in 1982 on the basis of his being a Matric Trained teacher ever since 1966. Thus, if on this basis after preparation of the combined gradation list in terms of the judgment of the Full Bench in the case of Ram Nath Prasad Singh (supra), the petitioner can be given any prospective promotion because such gradation list was not prepared till the retirement of the petitioner in the year 2005 and the same was prepared and placed on 5.2.2011 before the promotion committee as is apparent from reading of the counter affidavit in the case of Kameshwar Tiwari (supra), this Court would only direct that the case of the petitioner should be reconsidered for promotion in the B.A. trained pay-scale but only after correcting the date of his matric trained pay-scale and seniority position, inasmuch as, in the same gradation list, he has been placed at serial no.1 by showing him to have been getting matric trained pay-scale with effect from 11.1.1962 whereas the petitioner himself claimed that he had passed the training examination in the year 1966 and, therefore, if the Matric Trained Teachers of 1966 shall be given promotion on the post of B.A. trained teacher at any point of time, the petitioner’s promotion shall also be notified against the available vacancy so that the petitioner can get financial benefits at least by way of re-fixation of his higher pension and retirement benefit which he is getting ever since his date of retirement on 1.7.2005. 42. It is, however, made clear that case of promotion of the petitioner shall be considered by the District Promotion Committee under 2011 Rules and a decision will be taken with regard to the date of his promotion keeping in view the date of his birth, date of his appointment, date of his passing the B.A. examination, date of his passing the Teachers Training Examination and also becoming eligible for grant of B.A. trained pay-scale as also his date of retirement. 43. This exercise, however, must be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this judgment. 44. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of.