ORDER : The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents for considering his promotion from Grade-IV to Grade-VII w.e.f. 29.06.2013 with all consequential benefits as the junior to the petitioner has been promoted in Grade VII scale w.e.f. 29.06.2013 vide letter No. 1025. Further prayer has been made for quashing the Letter/Memo No. 92 dated 19.01.2015 issued by respondent No.4 wherein, the respondent has promoted the petitioner from Grade II to Grade-IV from the date of his joining whereas the petitioner is entitled for the promotion in Grade-IV w.e.f. 26.02.2007, i.e. the date on which the juniors to the petitioner have been promoted in Grade-IV with all consequential benefits. 2. The short facts of the case lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner was appointed on 28.10.1994 as untrained graduate teacher on the basis of merit list. The petitioner was supposed to be sent for training immediately after his appointment, but after long gap the petitioner was sent for training along with others and he has successfully completed the Teachers Training Examination on 03.06.2002. Thereafter, aggrieved by the non-consideration of his case for promotion in view of the Government Circular, he moved before this Hon’ble Court by filing a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 4635 of 2013 for promotion from Grade-I to Grade-IV from the date of his initial joining and the same was disposed of vide order dated 31.07.2013 with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in view of promotion rules from the date of his initial joining in view of law laid down by this Hon’ble Court and affirmed up to the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Balwant Sahay Vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors. in W.P.(S) No. 4235/2004 and also in case of Arun Sinha Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. in W.P.(S) No. 638 of 2006, which has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court as well as Hon’ble Apex Court and the said legal position was never disputed by the respondents. 3. It is the specific case of the petitioner that in compliance of the order dated 31.07.2013, passed by this Court, the case of the petitioner was considered and was given promotion in Grade-IV vide Memo No.92 dated 19.01.2015 w.e.f. his date of joining. 3. It is the specific case of the petitioner that in compliance of the order dated 31.07.2013, passed by this Court, the case of the petitioner was considered and was given promotion in Grade-IV vide Memo No.92 dated 19.01.2015 w.e.f. his date of joining. In the seniority list issued vide letter No. 436 dated 08.04.2013, the name of the petitioner is placed at Sl. No. 15 but in spite of that juniors to the petitioner have already been promoted in Grade IV w.e.f. 26.02.2007 and further to Grade VII in the year, 2013 itself, whereas, the petitioner got promotion in Grade-IV vide order dated 19.01.2015 from the date of his joining, which is contrary to the settled principles of law. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner represented before the respondents for consideration of his case for grant of promotion from Grade-IV to Grade VII w.e.f. the date on which the juniors to petitioner have been promoted and as per the gradation list and by rectifying the date of promotion from Grade II to Grade IV, but the same was not considered and hence, this writ petition has been preferred. 4. Mr. Praveen Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in spite of several orders passed by this Hon’ble Court, the respondents have not considered the case of the petitioner for promotion to Grade-IV and further to Grade VII from the date of his initial appointment and from the date on which the juniors to the petitioner have been considered and granted promotion. The respondents have illegally and arbitrarily considered the case of the petitioner to promote him to Grade IV w.e.f 19.01.2015 in place of 26.02.2007 while the juniors to the petitioner have already been given the same benefit on 26.02.2007 itself. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that juniors to the petitioner have been considered for promotion from the date of his initial appointment, but the petitioner has been denied the said benefits. Learned counsel for the petitioner places heavy reliance on a Judgment/order passed by this Hon’ble Court in case of Binay Kumar Tiwary & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand in L.P.A. No. 388 of 2013 and other analogous cases which was disposed of on 23.03.2017, considering the view reiterated by this Court earlier in case of Arun Sinha Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand in L.P.A. No. 388 of 2013 and other analogous cases which was disposed of on 23.03.2017, considering the view reiterated by this Court earlier in case of Arun Sinha Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. in W.P.(S) No. 638 of 2006, which has been affirmed upto the Hon’ble Apex Court. 5. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Nikhil Ranjan, learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to dispute the orders of this Hon’ble Court passed in LPA No. 388 of 2013 and other analogous cases, which were disposed of on 23.03.2017. Learned counsel places reliance on the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents and submits that we have considered the case of the petitioner and granted the Grade-I pay scale from the date of his joining and further to Grade-II and Grade IV, but as far as Grade VII is concerned, the same has not been considered till date, will be decided in near future in accordance with prescribed law and decision of the District Education Establishment Committee. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties and from perusal of records, it transpires that the respondents have considered the case of the other candidates/juniors to the petitioner for granting them promotion from the date of their training though they were appointed much after the petitioner only on the ground that they had undergone training much prior to the petitioner, ignoring settled principle of law that promotion has to be counted from the date of initial appointment and not from the training, which has been affirmed up to the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Arun Sinha Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. (supra). 7. In the instant case, learned counsel for the petitioner has been able to demonstrate from Annexure 5 to the writ petition that juniors to the petitioner namely, Shri Arun Kumar Mehta, who was appointed on 29.10.1994 and Vijay Kumar Tiwary, who was appointed on 16.12.1994 have been considered and granted promotion to Grade IV from 26.02.2007, whereas the petitioner, who was appointed on 28.10.1994, was considered for promotion to Grade IV from 19.01.2015, which is illegal and not tenable in the eyes of law. Juniors to the petitioner have already been granted promotion in Grade VII also w.e.f 29.06.2013 in the pay scale of Headmaster. Juniors to the petitioner have already been granted promotion in Grade VII also w.e.f 29.06.2013 in the pay scale of Headmaster. The case of the petitioner needs consideration on the following grounds:- 1. The issue regarding consideration of promotion from the initial date of appointment and not from the date of completion of training, which has been set at rest by the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLA (Civil) Nos. 6777-6779 of 2013. 2. Juniors to the petitioner have been considered and granted promotion to Grade IV and further to Grade VII w.e.f. 26.02.2007 and 29.06.2013 respectively, whereas the case of the petitioner has been illegally and arbitrarily denied. 3. The issue regarding promotion to teachers is now no more res integra, law of the land has to be taken into consideration while granting promotion. 8. In the instant case, pick and choose method has been adopted and as such, the petitioner is entitled for promotion from the date on which the juniors to him have been considered taking into account the date of initial appointment and not date of completion of the training. The petitioner is much senior to the candidates, who have been granted promotion w.e.f. 26.02.2007 and is placed higher in the seniority list i.e. at Sl No. 15, which is never been disputed by the respondents. 9. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules and guidelines, I am of the considered view that the case of the petitioner ought to have been considered and the part of the order at Annexure 3, i.e. Memo No. 92 dated 19.01.2015 is hereby quashed and set aside so far as it relates to the petitioner granting promotion to Grade IV. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion in Grade IV w.e.f 26.02.2007 and Grade VII w.e.f 26.06.2013 on the dates, juniors to the petitioner have been considered and granted promotion with all consequential benefits, in accordance with law. 10. With the aforesaid observations, writ petition stands disposed of.