ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the mode of posting them pursuant to their promotion from the post of Assistant Teachers to Headmasters. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a system of posting by lottery is alien to law, having no relation or connection with the objective sought to be achieved in such matters. It was submitted that, though, the standard principle which is also equitable and in conformity with the requirement of law and which has been in practice from before, such postings had to be in terms of the policy of the State Government which lays down certain priority for various defined sections / category of persons who were to be given preference in such posting. Learned counsel submitted that besides that, the thumb rule which is required to be followed is seniority-cum-choice. It was submitted that the petitioners being senior to persons who are being appointed at various places have been denied their choice posting, which in the past was the procedure adopted, as three options were called for by the authorities from the prospective promotees and accordingly, postings were made. It was submitted that such type of procedure for posting was fair and transparent without favour and, thus, was not objected or challenged by any of the concerned persons. However, it was contended, that even in the present transaction, though the exercise of promotion and posting from Assistant Teacher to Headmaster was undertaken in the entire State of Bihar, except for the districts of Nalanda and Madhepura, where the postings have been made on the basis of lottery, and in Jehanabad also, initially the postings were as per the traditional principle of seniority-cum-choice, but the District Magistrate had cancelled the same and had directed for lottery. 4. Learned counsel submitted that the matter was sent to the Principal Secretary, Department of Education for looking into the issue and taking a categorical stand on behalf of the State, and pursuant to the same, a personal affidavit has been filed by him in which he has categorically stated that there is no departmental provision for lottery system in the matter of posting of Headmasters in the Middle School. It was further submitted that though certain guidelines have been referred, but in the same affidavit, the Principal Secretary has also stated that the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Nalanda has accordingly been directed to do further needful in the matter and to file appropriate affidavit before the High Court. Learned counsel submitted that in such view of the matter, the writ petition be disposed off with a direction to the authorities concerned to go through the process in terms of the directions given by the Principal Secretary, as has been stated in his affidavit filed in C.W.J.C. No.19790 of 2016. 5. Learned counsel for the State submitted that he has no objection to such direction of the Court and further prayed that the Court may fix a time frame for the exercise to be completed and also direct that the same should be under the guidance and supervision of the Principal Secretary. 6. Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the proposed intervenors, in C.W.J.C. No.19790 of 2016, has also been heard. He submitted that the present writ application is not maintainable for two reasons. Firstly, he submitted, that the petitioner has been represented through a person who has retired and, thus, he cannot maintain any grievance with regard to posting of any person as it affects only those who are in service. Secondly, he submitted, that in the Primary School Teachers Promotion Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’), there is provision of appeal before the concerned Regional Deputy Director of Education under Rule 18 of the Rules. Learned counsel submitted that straightaway coming to the High Court is without bona fide, as there is already an efficacious remedy available to the petitioners. 7. Coming to the merits of the matter, learned counsel submitted, that a validly constituted Promotion Committee in terms of Rule 4 of the Rules took a decision in the present matter and, thus, the legal sanctity of the exercise cannot be called into question, as also there cannot be any question of any mala fide in the posting which has been done, in which there is no subjective on individual role of any person. Learned counsel further submitted, that the challenge in the writ petition is to the order contained in Memo No.3513 dated 29.10.2016, which is a composite order of promotion-cum-posting, but the same has been done in terms of the provisions of the Rules. Learned counsel further drew the attention of the Court to copy of the circular of the Education Department contained in letter No.240 dated 19.02.2014, which lays down the mode of posting of persons after their promotion. It was submitted that Clause 4 of the said circular being relevant has been followed by the Committee while making the recommendations which is under challenge. He also referred to the circular of the Education Department, contained in Memo No.102 dated 13.01.2013 submitting that the guidelines given in the said circular have also been taken care of while making the promotion / posting. 8. Learned counsel further submitted that the earlier ban imposed on such promotions was also relaxed by the General Administration Department. It was submitted that the said embargo against promotion was lifted pursuant to the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.2247 of 2016 by judgment dated 24.02.2016. Learned counsel submitted that the Court had specifically noted that the grant of promotion on the post of Headmaster was vexing the petitioner right from the year 2013 and accordingly, the Court had to give specific direction to take a decision with regard to the pending promotions. It was submitted that pursuant to such exercise, the concerned respondents undertook the exercise relating to promotion and subsequent posting of the eligible persons, which is impugned herein, but the same being without any legal infirmity, the Court may not interfere in the same. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners, by way of reply, submitted that the reference to the Rules for the purpose of moving in appeal before the concerned Regional Deputy Director of Education, is misplaced, for the reason, that Rule 18 of the Rules specifically states that the grievance with regard to order of promotion is only amenable to appeal whereas in the present case, the petitioners support the decision granting promotion and only with regard to posting, the writ application has been filed. It was further submitted, that the instructions issued by the General Administration Department with regard to going ahead with promotion may not be of much relevance in the present case, as it was the general policy of the State Government to withhold promotion and the same being relaxed, all promotions have to be considered, even though the controversy related to preference being given to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates in promotions. With regard to the petitioner being a retired teacher and, thus, incapable of maintaining the present writ, learned counsel submitted that the objection is misconceived. He submitted that the petitioner is a registered body and the bye-laws provide for life membership and, therefore, there is no requirement of the person to be in service, as even upon superannuation the membership continues. 10. Having considered the mater, the Court would take note of the affidavit filed in terms of the order of the Court, which was affirmed on 23.8.2017 by the Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar. The categorical stand taken at paragraphs No.4 to 7 is reproduced hereinbelow : – “4. That with regard to the core issue raised in the present writ application pertaining to the mode and manner followed by the District Elementary Promotion Committee Nalanda in posting of teachers on the post of headmaster is concerned, it is most respectfully submitted that there is no departmental provision for lottery system in the matter of posting of headmaster at the middle schools. 5. That it is submitted that the issue of promotion and follow up posting of elementary teachers fails within the competence of the concerned district elementary promotion committee. 6. 5. That it is submitted that the issue of promotion and follow up posting of elementary teachers fails within the competence of the concerned district elementary promotion committee. 6. That it is submitted that in matters of posting after promotion particularly on the post of headmaster that guidelines stating the priority and the mechanism to be followed in the said process of posting had been provided by the Director Primary Education vide memo no.102 dated 30.01.2013 (Annexure-2) which reads as follows : – ¼1½ Á/kkuk/;kid ds in ij ÁksUufr ds mijkar mudh la[;k ds vuqikr esa Á[kaMokj e/; fo|ky;ksa dh la[;k dks /;ku esa j[kdj vuqikfrd :i ls inLFkkiu ij fopkj fd;k tk;sxkA ¼2½ Á[kaM ds fpfUgr fo|ky; tks fudklh ,oa O;;u inkf/kdkjh ls lacaf/kr gksa] ds Á/kkuk/;kid dk in ;fn fjDr gks rks ogka ij loZÁFke inLFkkiu fd;k tk,A ¼3½ blds mijkar oSls e/; fo|ky; tgka ladqy lalk/ku dsUæ vofLFkr gS vkSj ;fn ogka Á/kkuk/;kid ds in fjDr gks rks ogka ij Á/kkuk/;kid ds in ij inLFkkiuk dh dkjZokbZ dh tk,A ¼4½ mDr dafMdkvksa esa of.kZr inLFkkiu ds lkekU; fl}kUr ds varxZr ftu ÁksUur f'k{kdksa dh lsokfuo`fÙk ,d lky ds vanj gks muds ;FkklaHko bfPNr inLFkkiu ij fopkj fd;k tk;A blh Øe esa fodykax f'k{kdksa ,oa efgyk f'k{kdksa ds ekeys esa Hkh mudh bPNk dk /;ku j[kk tk;A 7. That it is submitted that in light of the aforesaid the concerned District Programme Officer (Establishment) Nalanda has accordingly been directed to do the further needful in the matter and to file appropriate affidavit in the matter before the Hon’ble High Court that a consolidated reply of the writ application filed by the petitioner is being filed and the answering respondent craves leave for filing para-wise reply if so required or directed by this Hon’ble Court.” 11. In the present cases, the promotions granted to the persons by the Competent Promotion Committee constituted in terms of Rule 4 of the Rules, not being the issue involved, does not require to be gone into by this Court. However, in the matter of posting, the Court does not find that the Rules have any relevance. Promotion is a separate transaction whereas posting is a subsequent, and separate transaction. The requirement of posting shall come only after promotion and since, at the first instance, promotion has to be decided, as per the policy of the State Government / Department and inter se seniority. Promotion is a separate transaction whereas posting is a subsequent, and separate transaction. The requirement of posting shall come only after promotion and since, at the first instance, promotion has to be decided, as per the policy of the State Government / Department and inter se seniority. Once the said exercise is complete, only then the Competent Authority/ Committee is required to go into the actual posting of such persons. In the present case, neither the Court has come across nor any of the parties have brought on record any material, to indicate as to how the posting can be justified by lottery system, which admittedly has been the mode in the present cases. There may be priority given by the Government with regard to considering favourably cases of women, handicapped persons and those retiring within one year. Such provision has been made in terms of the circular of the State Government contained in Memo No.102 dated 30.01.2013. The aforesaid has also been quoted in the affidavit filed by the Principal Secretary and he has taken a categorical stand that the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Nalanda has been directed to do further needful in the matter. The Court would only add here that the postings, after the priority fixed for certain groups, has to be in such a manner which is objective, fair, reasonable, equitable and also practical, without causing dissatisfaction on account of inter se seniority being given a complete go-by. 12. Having regard to the aforesaid, without going into the merits or giving a finding with regard to the manner and modality of deciding the posting, after promotion, to the post of Headmaster, the Court endorses the stand taken by the Principal Secretary, Education Department, Bihar to hold that, at least with regard to posting by way of lottery, there is no provision with regard to the same and, thus, it cannot be sustained. Having held that, as a consequence a fresh list relating to posting has to be drawn up by the Competent Authority / Committee and for the said purpose, as uniformity has to be maintained with regard to the entire State of Bihar by adopting a common policy, it is deemed that the exercises be done under the guidance / supervision of the Principal Secretary, Education Department, Bihar, in the present cases relating to the districts of Nalanda, Madhepura and Jehanabad. 13. 13. Accordingly, the writ petitions stand disposed off with partly quashing the impugned orders to the extent postings have been made, without interfering in the promotion granted to the persons. The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Bihar shall ensure that fresh orders relating to posting of the persons concerned is issued expeditiously, and latest within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a copy of this order before him. The Court would indicate that all points and views which any of the parties may put forward before the Principal Secretary of the Department, within two weeks from today, shall be taken into consideration. 14. It is clarified that the exercise shall relate to all those persons whose names find place in the lists in which the Court has interfered.