JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Having lost before learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment dated 2nd September, 2009 passed in W.P. (S) No. 6922 of 2005, the writ petitioner is the appellant before this Court in the present appeal. Petitioner approached the Writ Court for grant of promotion in the Senior Grade alleging that juniors have been granted such promotion. He further prayed for consideration of his case for seniority from the date of his appointment as Assistant Teacher with effect from 16th November, 1972 and for arrears of pay and consequential benefit, to which he would be entitled. 3. As the facts on record reveal, petitioner was appointed on 3rd November, 1972 as Assistant Teacher in the Government Girls Middle School, Borio in the District of Sahibganj on Matric Untrained Scale. As per the terms of the appointment letter, he was required to obtain Teachers’ Training Qualification. Petitioner's refrain that he was left out when the others similarly situated were sent for training. He passed Intermediate in 1975 and obtained Graduation in 1978. It was only in the Sessions 1992-93 that he was sent for training by Regional Deputy Director of Education, Santhal Pargana, Dumka, the results of which were published on 16th August, 1993. In the gradation list published for the District of Sahebganj on 24th February, 2005, petitioner’s case was not considered as he got Matric Trained Scale only with effect from 16th October, 1993 after acquiring Teachers Training qualification. He cited example of one or the other persons, who were wrongly placed in the gradation list though had acquired training after him such as Mohan Ravi Das. He also complained that several others, who were appointed after him, were sent for teachers training in the earlier Sessions though petitioner was not relieved for obtaining the training. 4. According to the petitioner, in terms of Notification no. 140 dated 23rd January, 1980 issued under the Bihar Non-Government Elementary Schools (Taking over Control) Act, 1976, it was the duty of respondent authorities to send the Untrained Teachers appointed after 1.1.1971 to acquire two years Teachers Training in the Primary Teachers Training College. If he possessed the Graduation Degree, the facility of 10 months B.Ed Course should be provided to such incumbent. 5. If he possessed the Graduation Degree, the facility of 10 months B.Ed Course should be provided to such incumbent. 5. The respondents pleaded that the earlier State Government notification dated 17th December, 1976 laid down mode of promotion of teachers on the basis of vacancy. This has been replaced by the Bihar Taken Over Elementary Teachers Promotion Rules 1993 made effective from 1st January, 1986. The gradation list under 1993 Rules were to be prepared every year on the basis of qualification obtained by the teachers as on 31st December and from such lists vacancies were to be filled up between 1st April to 31st March by promotion according to seniority. 6. Leaned Single Judge considered the submission of the parties and the material pleadings/documents on record. In respect of grievance relating to seniority vis-à-vis one Mohan Ravi Das, learned Court came to a finding that on petitioner’s representation, he was placed above Mohan Ravi Das in the list of Matric Trained Teachers of Schedule Caste Category. No further objections were raised by him. The discussions made in the impugned judgment veers around the rival pleas of the parties on the responsibility of teacher or the State Government in sending the persons concerned for acquiring Teachers Training Qualification. 7. Learned Single Judge after some discussion has arrived at the conclusion that since 1993 rules lay down that promotions to I.A. Trained Scale and Graduate Trained Scale can be given only upon acquisition of Teachers Training and grant of Matric Trained Scale to the concerned teachers in terms of 1993 Rules, since the petitioner had acquired Teachers Training in the year 1993 he could be eligible to the higher grade only after completing 12 years in his initial grade. Having held as such, writ petition was dismissed as being without any merit. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has inter alia submitted that the delay in sending the writ petitioner for Teachers Training should not come in the way of his consideration in the higher scales. The case of the appellant should have been considered in that light. 9. Learned counsel for the Respondent-State has however defended the impugned judgment. It is submitted on behalf of learned counsel for the State, Mrs. The case of the appellant should have been considered in that light. 9. Learned counsel for the Respondent-State has however defended the impugned judgment. It is submitted on behalf of learned counsel for the State, Mrs. Richa Sanchita that the factum of acquisition of teachers training is the main criteria on the basis of which Matric Trained Scale or Higher I.A Trained Scale/Graduate Trained Scale are to be granted to the teachers covered under Rule 5 of 1993 Rules. Appellant was appointed in the year 1972 itself and having acquired Teachers Training Qualification in 1993, all subsequent promotions as per his eligibility have been granted from time to time. However, retrospective promotion from the date anterior to the coming into force to 1993 Rules could not be granted. 10. Learned counsel for the parties have however fairly placed the judgment passed by one of us (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J) in the case of Sunil Kumar Bhagat and others in W.P. (S) No. 2547 of 2014 and analogous cases reported in (2016) 1 J.L.J.R 663. The State of Jharkhand in obedience to the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arun Sinha and others (Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 5520-5522/2013) has issued resolution bearing Memo No. 3027 dated 14th December, 2015 containing the policy decision in that regard. The instant appeal arose from the judgment of learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 638 of 2006 and L.P.A. No.214 of 2008. Para-15 of the resolution has been quoted in the judgment rendered by learned Single Judge in the case of Sunil Kumar Bhagat (Supra). That lays down the category of Primary School Teachers, who are entitled for grant of Matric Trained Scale from the date of their joining on the basis of having acquired teachers training qualification though at a later date, not on account of fault of the teachers. According to these resolution category of primary school teachers appointed in the year 1987-1988 or 1994-1999-2000 were to get the benefit of ratio rendered in the case of Arun Sinha and others. 11. Perusal of the said judgment and the resolution incorporated therein also leads to the same conclusion that the writ petitioner's case cannot improve any further on that ground. 11. Perusal of the said judgment and the resolution incorporated therein also leads to the same conclusion that the writ petitioner's case cannot improve any further on that ground. As per the ratio rendered in Arun Sinha's case, several such primary teachers appointed in the respective years as also referred in the resolution dated 14.12.2015, who underwent training much after their appointment were considered as entitled for grant of Matric Trained Scale from the date of their joining. The present writ petitioner, however, has been appointed in the year 1972 itself. He has acquired teachers training in the year 1993 only from which date he has been granted Matric Trained Scale and thereafter other consequent higher scales on completion of requisite number of years and eligibility etc. as laid down in terms of Rule 5 of the 1993 Rules. 12. In such circumstances, we do not consider that the impugned judgment suffer from any error of facts or law requiring interference in the appellate jurisdiction. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.