JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. 1. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioners have inter alia prayed for direction upon the respondents to grant forthwith I.A. trained scale and B.A. trained scale to the petitioners from the date persons juniors to them have been granted such benefit i.e. with effect from 01.04.1984 with all consequential benefits and; further prayer has been made for direction upon the respondents to grant promotion on the post of Headmaster since persons junior to them have been granted promotion after extending benefit of I.A trained and B.A. trained scales. 2. The facts, in brief, is that petitioner no. 1 was appointed as Matric Trained Teacher vide memo dated 28.10.1972 whereas petitioner no. 2 was initially appointed as teacher in Matric untrained scale and after completion of training, he was given Matric trained scale as on 13.05.1970. It has further been averred that by passage of time, petitioner no. 1 passed his I.A. examination on 20.10.1975 and B.A. examination on 3.7.1979 from Ranchi University and he was given benefit of 1st time bound promotion w.e.f 04.01.1998 and completed his training on 26.08.1972 whereas petitioner no. 2 passed his I.A examination on 09.11.1974 and B.A examination on 28.06.1978 from Ranchi University and he was given benefit of time bound promotion w.e.f. 20.11.1985 and completed his training on 22.12.1969. 3. It has further been averred that when the petitioners were not given I.A. and B.A trained scale and persons juniors to them have been extended such benefit, they knocked the door of this Court by filing C.W.J.C No. 3014 of 1998(R), which was disposed of vide order dated 08th August, 2002 with a direction to the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioners taking into account statement made in paragraph 32 of the counter affidavit, in which, the respondents had made a statement that District Establishment Education Committee in its next meeting shall put up the matter of petitioners and after scrutinizing, if it is found that the B.A. trained teachers, who have been given promotion, are junior to the petitioners, then only their claim will be entertained. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners submitted representation, but when it did not evoke any response, the petitioners again moved this Court by filing Cont. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners submitted representation, but when it did not evoke any response, the petitioners again moved this Court by filing Cont. Case (C) No. 613 of 2004, in which by way of filing show cause affidavit, the contemnor brought on record the fact that the District Establishment committee in its meeting held on 27.11.2004 found the petitioners senior to teachers mentioned in list-2, having the qualification to be given B.A. trained scale w.e.f 1.4.1984, however, it was decided to find out vacancy position in B.A. trained scale as on 1.4.1984 in the district of Dhanbad. Accordingly, the contempt proceeding was dropped vide order dated 02.07.2005 observing the impugned order has been substantially complied with. 4. It has further been averred that after order having been passed in Contempt petition, the petitioners again submitted several representations before the respondents but instead of redressing the grievance of the petitioners, the respondents vide by letter dated 06.03.2006 served a show cause upon the petitioners stating therein that the claim of the petitioner has been rejected by Hon’ble Court vide order dated 2.7.2005 and in-spite of that the petitioner is making representation for giving promotion and unnecessary wasting the time of office by making such representations, which is against the conduct of the government employee. 5. It has further been averred that when the order of Hon’ble Court was not complied with in its letter and spirit, the petitioners filed another contempt application, being Cont. Case (C) No. 528 of 2006, which was dropped vide order dated 22.6.2007 stating no contempt is made out. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted with vehemence that it is the respondents-authorities, who themselves have admitted that the petitioners are seniors to the persons, whose name reflect in list-2 but by adopting pick and choose method in the matter of granting I.A and B.A trained scale among the same group of teachers, the claim of the petitioners have been ignored and the petitioners have been subjected to hostile discrimination causing huge monetary loss as well as status inasmuch as persons juniors to petitioners are drawing higher pay-scale and higher post. 7. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to decision rendered in the case of P. Sudhakar Rao & Ors Vs. U. Govinda Rao & Ors as reported in (2013) 8 SCC 693 ; Suryadeo Prasad Vs. 7. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to decision rendered in the case of P. Sudhakar Rao & Ors Vs. U. Govinda Rao & Ors as reported in (2013) 8 SCC 693 ; Suryadeo Prasad Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors as reported in 2010 (3) JCR 238 (Jhr); Rajeshwar Prasad & Ors Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors as reported in 2003 1 JLJR 120 . 8. Reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavit, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in compliance of order dated 08.08.2002 passed in C.W.J.C No. 3014 of 1998(R), scrutiny was made by the committee and it was found that these petitioners are not senior as alleged by the petitioners rather the gradation list, which was brought to the notice of Hon’ble Court was not approved by higher authorities and it does not bear signature of higher authorities like R.R.D.E, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh, which was a must to give effect to the said list. It has further been submitted that in spite of Contempt petition having been dropped, the petitioner submitted a series of representations for the same and similar grievance, which compelled the authorities to issue show cause letter dated 06.03.2006. It has further been averred that in the counter affidavit filed in Cont. Case (C) No. 613 of 2004, the respondents have stated that a new provisional gradation list has been published and objections have been invited and after meeting the objections, final gradation list shall be prepared. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that petitioner no. 1 was granted time bound promotion from Grade II to Grade III as per Rule 5(1) of the Promotion Rules, 1993 w.e.f 01.04.2002 in the pay-scale of 5500-9000 with grade pay of Rs. 4800/-, which is equivalent to pay-scale granted to Grade–IV employees and further petitioner no. 2 was granted time bound promotion from Grade II to Grade III as per Rule 5(1) of the Promotion Rules, 1993 w.e.f. 01.04.2009 in the pay-scale of 55009000 with grade pay of Rs. 4800/-, which is equivalent to pay-scale granted to Grade–IV employees. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that as of 01.04.1984, from which date the petitioners are claiming their promotion, the petitioners were not eligible for grant of benefit of I.A. and B.A. trained scale as per seniority, available vacancy and roster. 4800/-, which is equivalent to pay-scale granted to Grade–IV employees. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that as of 01.04.1984, from which date the petitioners are claiming their promotion, the petitioners were not eligible for grant of benefit of I.A. and B.A. trained scale as per seniority, available vacancy and roster. It has further been submitted that a provisional seniority list for Grade IV was prepared and no objection was raised by the petitioners as per Rule 9 of the Promotion Rules, 1993. Further, on 24.01.2017 a meeting of District Education Establishment Committee was held, in which petitioners were not considered eligible to be promoted to Grade IV as they cannot be considered to be eligible to be promoted to the post of Headmaster, which is Grade VII post, as has been claimed by the petitioners in the present writ petition. 10. On perusal of the materials available on record and after giving my anxious consideration to the rivalised submissions, I am of the considered view that the petitioners have not been able to make out a case for interference for the following facts and reasons: (i).Petitioner no. 1, who was appointed as Matric Trained Teacher vide memo dated 28.10.1972 and petitioner no. 2 who was initially appointed as teacher in Matric un-trained scale initially approached this Court by filing C.W.J.C No. 3014 of 1998(R), which was disposed of vide order dated 08th August, 2002, with a direction to the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioners taking into account the statement made in paragraph 32 of the counter affidavit, wherein the respondents had made a specific statement that District Establishment Education Committee in its next meeting shall put the matter of petitioners. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners submitted representation before the authorities concerned for redressal of their grievances, but when it did not evoke any response, the petitioners preferred Cont. Case (C) No. 613 of 2004 for non-compliance of order dated 08.08.2002 passed in C.W.J.C No. 3014 of 1998(R), which was dropped vide order dated 02.07.2005 observing the impugned order has been substantially complied with. Thereafter, again the petitioners filed Cont. Case (C) No. 528 of 2006, which was dropped vide order dated 22.6.2007 stating no contempt is made out. Hence, the issue which was agitated in C.W.J.C No. 3014 of 1998(R) has now set at rest. Thereafter, again the petitioners filed Cont. Case (C) No. 528 of 2006, which was dropped vide order dated 22.6.2007 stating no contempt is made out. Hence, the issue which was agitated in C.W.J.C No. 3014 of 1998(R) has now set at rest. (ii).In the counter affidavit, the respondents have stated that in compliance of order passed by this Court in C.W.J.C No. 3014 of 1998(R), scrutiny was made and it was found that the gradation list which has been brought to the notice of the Hon’ble Court was not an approved gradation list, as on the same signature of higher authorities was not obtained. Be that as it may be, from perusal of Annexure B and C to the supplementary counter affidavit, it is amply clear that both the petitioners have been granted promotion to Grade 3 pursuant to decision made in District Establishment Education Committee in its meeting dated 03.09.2009, w.e.f 01.04.2002 and 01.04.2009 respectively which the petitioners have never challenged nor any protest have ever been made by them and they accepted it in toto. (iii).Furthermore, provisional seniority list for Grade 4 was prepared and on that also no objection was raised by the petitioner. Accordingly, in the meeting of District Education Establishment Committee held on 07.02.2017 the matter of promotion to all those persons whose names were found eligible to be promoted to Grade 4 was added in final seniority list and the same was approved by the Committee and petitioners being found not eligible to be promoted to Grade 4 they were not promoted. Hence, the issue of seniority of the petitioner has now set at rest. (iv).So far as case laws cited by the petitioners are concerned, there is no shadow of doubt on the principle enunciated by Hon'ble Court but, in the facts of the present case, they are of no help to the petitioner and is not applicable in the case at hand. 11. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, the writ petition, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed.