JUDGMENT : In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the office order dated 09.01.2006 (Annexure-18) pertaining to cancellation of promotion. 2. The brief facts, leading to the filing of the writ application, are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher in the Middle School, Kasmar in the district of Giridih in the year 1987 and the petitioner was granted benefits of Matric-trained scale of Rs.1200-2040/- from the date of his joining. However, since in spite of the eligibility of the petitioner for promotion to get Grade-IV (BA trained scale) as per Rule 4 (5) of the Primary School Teachers' Promotion Rule, 1993 his case was not considered, petitioner approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1523 of 1998 (R), which was disposed of vide order dated 03.12.1998 with a direction to the respondents to consider the matter and take a final decision in the matter. Vide order dated 29.10.1999, when the District Superintendent of Education, Lohardaga rejected the claim of the petitioner for B.A. trained scale, again the petitioner preferred a writ application, being C.W.J.C. No. 3631 of 1999 (R) and the said writ application was disposed of vide order dated 14.06.2001 by remitting to the respondents to determine as to whether the petitioner was actually entitled for promotion on grade-IV with effect from 04.05.1995, therefore, the petitioner submitted representation in pursuance to the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3631 of 1999 (R) and vide order dated 22.10.2001, the respondent No. 3, as per rule 93 of the Promotion Rules and on the recommendation of the Additional Director of Education, Jharkhand, Ranchi, granted promotion to the petitioner in Grade-IV post (B.A.- trained scale) with effect from 04.05.1995 vide Annexure-4 to the writ application. Consequent upon the said promotion order, the pay-scale of the petitioner has been fixed by the respondent no. 3, which was duly verified and confirmed by the Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand. Consequent upon the said promotion order, the pay-scale of the petitioner has been fixed by the respondent no. 3, which was duly verified and confirmed by the Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand. However, to the utter surprise of the petitioner, the respondent No. 4 asked the Headmaster-cum-Drawing and Disbursing Officer of the Middle School, Lohardaga to stop payment of the teachers, who were newly promoted and accordingly, the salary of the petitioner on the promotional post was withheld for which the petitioner preferred writ application alongwith others being W.P. (S) No. 1476 of 2002 and vide order dated 07.03.2002, the writ application was disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 3 to make payment to the petitioner. Vide order dated 28.08.2002 and on approval of the Chairman of the District Education Establishment Committee, the payment of the B.A. trained scale has been directed to be paid to the petitioner but thereafter, due to stoppage of salary, the petitioner alongwith two others preferred writ application being W.P. (S) No. 2646 of 2004. The respondent no. 3 issued show cause notice to the petitioner and in compliance thereof, the petitioner submitted his explanation, but to the utter surprise and consternation of the petitioner, the respondent no. 4 without considering the show cause of the petitioner, cancelled the promotion vide Annexure-18 to the writ application. From the impugned order, it would be evident that there is a reference of the decision of the Establishment Committee dated 20.8.2005, which has been annexed as Annexure-19 to the writ application, it would appear that the promotion issued to the petitioner vide order No. 1014, dated-22.10.2001 was not the subject matter. Being aggrieved by the cancellation of the promotion order, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court for redressal of his grievances. 3. Mr. A. K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that on perusal of the impugned order, it is quite apparent that the respondents by referring to the decision of the Establishment Committee dated 20.08.2005, has cancelled the promotion of the petitioner and therefore, the said order, passed by the respondents, is not legally sustainable. 3. Mr. A. K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that on perusal of the impugned order, it is quite apparent that the respondents by referring to the decision of the Establishment Committee dated 20.08.2005, has cancelled the promotion of the petitioner and therefore, the said order, passed by the respondents, is not legally sustainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner having fulfilled all the conditions under the Promotion Rules, 1993 has been given promotion and the respondents without any cogent and plausible reasons, has cancelled the promotion in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, therefore, the action of the respondents smacks of arbitrary exercise of power. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent no. 4, controverting the averments made in the writ application. In the counter affidavit, it has been, inter alia, submitted that the petitioner has been deprived of promotion because of the fact that the name of the petitioner figures at Serial No. 536, which has been duly approved by the District Establishment Committee. It has further been submitted that the promotion given to the petitioner is in the teeth of the Promotion rule and without approval of the District Establishment Committee and the name of the petitioner does not come within the sanctioned vacant post. 5. Mr. Jayant Franklin Toppo, learned S.C. (Land & Ceiling) appearing for the Respondent-State has strenuously urged that the impugned order passed by the respondents does not call for any interference in view of the fact that the promotion, which was given to the petitioner has not been approved by the District Establishment Committee. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the records as well as the Enquiry Report, dated 30.12.2003 vide Annexure-15/1, it would appear that the details of letter nos. of promotion orders of those teachers were found to be illegal but the said report does not contain the promotion order issued under memo. no. 1014, dated 22.10.2001 vide Annexure-4 relating to the petitioner, and as such, it could not be construed that the promotion of the petitioner was subject matter of the enquiry, therefore, the action of the respondents in cancelling the promotion of the petitioner is not legally sustainable and is liable to be quashed and set aside. 7. no. 1014, dated 22.10.2001 vide Annexure-4 relating to the petitioner, and as such, it could not be construed that the promotion of the petitioner was subject matter of the enquiry, therefore, the action of the respondents in cancelling the promotion of the petitioner is not legally sustainable and is liable to be quashed and set aside. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 09.01.2006 (Annexure-18), issued by the respondents is quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted to the District Superintendent of Education, Lohardaga (respondent no. 4) to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. 8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands allowed.