JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. 1. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing portion of letter dated 05.05.2008 issued by Director, Secondary Education whereby the petitioner’s name appearing at serial no. 8 of the said letter sent for approval of his appointment has been returned stating he has qualification of B.P.Ed and further prayer has been made for direction upon the respondents to re-consider the case of the petitioner for grant and approval to the promotion on the post of Headmaster w.e.f 03.04.2001 along with interest. 2. The facts, in brief, is that initially the petitioner, having qualification of M.A and B.P.Ed was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Sri Vijay Bhakti Prem Suri Swetambar Jain High School, Madhuban, Giridih in the year 2001 and when in the year 1992, one Sr Bhim Sen Manjhi relieved from the post of Headmaster, the petitioner was made in-charge Headmaster of the said school by the Managing Committee of the said school and thereafter granted promotion to the post of Headmaster vide its proceeding dated 22.04.2007 and sent the same for approval. But, the respondents returned the proposal of his approval on the ground that petitioner possesses B.P.Ed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was duly eligible for promotion to the post of Headmaster in terms of provisions of Bihar Nationalized Secondary School (Service Condition Rules), 1983, wherein besides other qualification, it has clearly been mentioned that the incumbent must possess “B.Ed, D.P.Ed or any other equivalent qualification of Teachers’ Training. The petitioner contains the equivalent qualification of B.Ed i.e. B.P.Ed. It has further been submitted that similarly situated persons approached this Court by filing W.P. (S) No.7822 of 2006, which was disposed of vide this Court vide judgment dated 25.06.2008 directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in accordance with law and the same cannot be denied on the ground of coming into force of new Rules of 2004. Learned counsel for the petitioner further referred to the case of one Manohar Kandula, who has been given promotion having qualification of M.A and D.P. Ed. Hence, it has been submitted that action on the part of respondents denying approval of promotion of the petitioner is discriminatory, arbitrary and illegal. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further referred to the case of one Manohar Kandula, who has been given promotion having qualification of M.A and D.P. Ed. Hence, it has been submitted that action on the part of respondents denying approval of promotion of the petitioner is discriminatory, arbitrary and illegal. 4. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has qualification of B.P.Ed, which is not at all equivalent to B.Ed, so the claim of the petitioner is not justified. So far letter dated 24.11.1986 issued by Director, Secondary Education is concerned it relates to scale not concerned with promotion, hence, the proposal of the approval for promotion of the petitioner was rightly rejected at the Director level. 5. From the pleadings available on records, it appears that both the petitioner and respondents have relied and emphasized on Rule 4 of the Bihar Nationalized Secondary School (Service Condition Rules), 1983 to justify their case, hence, it would be profitable to reproduce the relevant provision, Rule 4 which prescribes minimum eligibility and qualification for appointment/promotion to the post of Headmaster: Rule 4: (i).Bachelor degree of recognized university; (ii). B.Ed., Dip-in-Ed., Dip-in-teach/C.T or any equivalent qualification of Teachers Training by any recognized university or Board recognized by the State Government. (iii). xxxx xxxx xxxx 6. From plain reading of Rule 4 (ii), it is manifestly clear that incumbent either should have B.Ed/Dip-in-Ed./Dip-in-teach/C.T or any equivalent qualification of teachers’ training. Admittedly, the petitioner has equivalent degree of B.P.Ed i.e. Bachelor of Physical Education, hence, the denial of promotion on the ground that the petitioner does not have equivalent degree of B.Ed is not countenanced. As a matter of fact, B.P.Ed is one of the stream of B.Ed as it is Bachelor in Physical Education; degree is same – stream is different. Here, in the instant case, rules of promotion neither specifies any stream nor debars specifically to the effect that any particular stream of particular candidate shall not be considered. 7. View of this Court gets fortified by the decision rendered in the case of Dhananjay Malik & Ors Vs. State of Uttaranchal & Ors as reported in (2008) 4 SCC 171 . 8. For the logical sequiter to the aforesaid discussions, portion of letter dated 05.05.2008 issued by respondent no. 3-Director, Secondary Education is hereby quashed and set aside and respondent no. State of Uttaranchal & Ors as reported in (2008) 4 SCC 171 . 8. For the logical sequiter to the aforesaid discussions, portion of letter dated 05.05.2008 issued by respondent no. 3-Director, Secondary Education is hereby quashed and set aside and respondent no. 3 is directed to re-consider the case of the petitioner for grant and approval to the promotion on the post of Headmaster treating degree of B.P.Ed equivalent to B.Ed in accordance with the Rules of promotion of 1983. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed.