JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing and setting aside the order dated 09.03.2017 (Annexure-7), by which respondent No. 4 has rejected the claim of the petitioner for promotion to Grade-IV scale. Further prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to promote the petitioner in Grade-III post after completion of required qualifying service period. Petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to promote him in Grade-IV scale from the date, when the juniors to him have been given promotion in the said grade and also to pay the arrears of difference of salary and other consequential benefits to petitioner after granting him promotion in Grade-III as well as in Grade-IV scale. 3. The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 13.05.1987 and in pursuant to that, he has given his joining on 23.05.1987 in Govt. Middle School, Meerganj (Satgawan). It is the case of the petitioner that he passed his Teacher’s Training Examination in the session of 1980-82 and thereafter passed, B.A. Examination in the year 1987 and as such, he was a Trained Graduate Teacher from the beginning of his joining as Assistant Teacher. As per provisions of Rule-6 of Bihar Taken Over Elementary School Teachers Promotion Rules, 1993 the respondents are duty bound to identify the availability of posts of Grade-III on 1st of April of every year to give promotion to Grade-III scale. As per Rule-5, all teachers who are Trained and has completed service of 12 years in Grade-II scale are eligible to get promotion in Grade-III scale. However, the respondents in violation of the said rule, have not identified and disclosed category-wise vacancies of Grade-III scale to which promotion was to be given from Grade-II scale. It is the specific case of the petitioner that juniors to him, namely Ms. Nayanpyari Chaturvedi and Ms. Meena Kumari who were appointed on 10.09.1987 and 11.09.1987 respectively, have been considered and granted promotion to Grade-IV scale but petitioner has been denied the same, which is apparent from memo dated 19.09.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner vide his representations dated 27.09.2016 and 03.10.2016, requested the respondents concerned to consider his case for promotion to Grade-IV scale. 4. Meena Kumari who were appointed on 10.09.1987 and 11.09.1987 respectively, have been considered and granted promotion to Grade-IV scale but petitioner has been denied the same, which is apparent from memo dated 19.09.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner vide his representations dated 27.09.2016 and 03.10.2016, requested the respondents concerned to consider his case for promotion to Grade-IV scale. 4. It is the further case of the petitioner that due to involvement in a criminal case he was made to compulsorily retire on 31.10.2013. However, the petitioner has been acquitted in the said criminal case. Consequently, in W.P.(S). No. 6060 of 2012 filed by the petitioner against the compulsory retirement, the Hon’ble High Court vide its order dated 06.11.2015 quashed the order of compulsory retirement and consequently, he was reinstated in service vide memo dated 29.03.2016 in Upgraded Middle School, Chandwara. Thereafter, the petitioner filed W.P(S). No. 6527 of 2016 for consideration of his case for promotion in Grade IV scale in view of the fact that juniors to him have already been granted promotion to the said post. The Hon’ble Court vide order dated 05.01.2017 has been pleased to dispose of the said writ petition directing the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma and D.S.E., Koderma to consider his representation and pass a reasoned order. The D.S.E. Koderma without properly perusing the order of the Hon’ble Court has rejected the claim of the petitioner vide order contained in memo dated 09.03.2017, for grant of promotion to Grade-IV scale, on erroneous grounds, which is the subject matter of challenge in the instant writ application. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that rejection order is against the decision of the department whereby it was decided to count the period from 24.06.2010 to 31.10.2013 for all purpose including for calculating pension and gratuity by treating it as continuous service. Therefore, it is illegal to reject the claim of the petitioner on the ground that aforesaid service period of the petitioner was irregular. Learned counsel further argues that the second ground of rejection that petitioner was not working in Grade-III scale is also misconceived because even Grade-II Graduate Trained Teachers are entitled to get promotion in Grade-IV directly as per Rule 5 of the 1993 Promotion Rules. Learned counsel further argues that the second ground of rejection that petitioner was not working in Grade-III scale is also misconceived because even Grade-II Graduate Trained Teachers are entitled to get promotion in Grade-IV directly as per Rule 5 of the 1993 Promotion Rules. Learned counsel further argues that as the period between 24.06.2010 to 31.10.2013 has been regularized and treated as continuous service by the respondents for all purposes, there was no occasion to withhold the promotion on account of break in service and as such, respondents are duty bound to give promotion to the petitioner in Grade-III and Grade-IV scale as per his entitlement. 6. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-States vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that at the time when the petitioner was entitled for promotion from Grade-II to Grade-III scale, he was in jail and as such, rightly the benefit of promotion was not extended to him. Denying allegation of the learned counsel for the petitioner that juniors to the petitioner were considered and granted promotion, learned counsel for the respondent submits that promotion order of teachers to Grade-IV scale has been issued vide memo dated 28.12.2016 by the D.S.E.-cum-S.D.E.O. Koderma after the meeting of District Education Establishment Committee, Koderma held on 29.11.2016 and 16.12.2016 and consequently, 31 teachers were given promotion to Grade-IV scale with effect from the date of their respective joining. Learned counsel further submits that all the 31 teachers, who were promoted, are senior to the petitioner. Placing reliance to the provisions of Rule 4(5) of the 1993 Promotion Rules, learned counsel submits that the promotion of a teacher may only be considered if his service is found satisfactory and since the service of the petitioner has been irregular for 6 years 6 months and 7 days, therefore, finding his service unsatisfactory, the respondents have taken a decision not to give promotion to the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that as per Rule-14 of the Bihar Taken Over Elementary School Teachers Promotion Rules, 1993 there is provisions of appeal and if a teacher is aggrieved by any order issued under Rule-10 of 1993 Promotion rules, he may file an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner within a period of 30 days from the date of order but the petitioner without exhausting the said remedy of appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, preferred the instant writ application and on this ground also the writ petition is not maintainable. 7. Be that as it may having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that since the punishment order of the petitioner has already been quashed by this Court and petitioner has been reinstated into the services with all consequential benefits, the period which he remained out of service has also be treated as the regular period of services for extending the benefits of salary and also for counting the same for the purpose of pension. The period of suspension has been held to be valid in service and as such, it cannot be said to be unsatisfactory. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent-State regarding rejection of the case of the petitioner for promotion on ground of unsatisfactory service is not tenable in the eyes of law, as the services of the petitioner can said to be fit in view of the quashment of the punishment order and also in view of the fact that the period of absence has been treated as period spent on duty and the entire salary has been paid and it has also been considered for the purpose of granting the pension. 8. Since there is no break in service and the period between 24.06.2010 to 31.10.2013 has been treated as continuous service by the respondents themselves, there was no occasion to withhold the promotion on account of break in service. 9. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 09.03.2017 (Annexure-17) is hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner is entitled for the same benefit to which the juniors to him have been considered and granted. 9. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 09.03.2017 (Annexure-17) is hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner is entitled for the same benefit to which the juniors to him have been considered and granted. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to reconsider the matter of the petitioner for his promotion and if it is found, upon verification, that any juniors to the petitioner have been considered and granted promotion, the same benefits shall also be extended to the present petitioner. 10. Let the entire exercise be completed within a period 12 weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 11. With aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.