JUDGMENT : Through Video Conferencing Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Sharad Kaushal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 3. This writ petition has been filed for the following relief : “(i) For a direction upon the respondents to immediately and forthwith grant promotion to the petitioner to grade IV which has accrued to the petitioner on account of completion of 8 years of service in grade I. (ii) For a direction upon the respondents to immediately and forthwith grant promotion to the petitioner to grade VII which would accrued to the petitioner on account of completion of 5 years of service in grade IV. (iii) For a direction upon the respondents to immediately and forthwith calculate and grant all the arrears of salary that would accrue to the petitioner on account of his promotion to grade IV and thereafter to grade VII, (iv) For a direction to calculate and make payments of all the arrears along with interest, (v) For a direction upon the respondents to show cause as to under what authority of law they have adopted a pick and choose method while granting the grade IV to various teachers in Sahibganj district and also state the reasons for discriminating the case of the petitioner from the other similarly situated teachers as well as juniors who have been granted grade IV.” Arguments of the Petitioner 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is governed by the Rules of promotion namely Bihar Taken Over Elementary School Teachers’ Promotion Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the aforesaid Promotion Rules of 1993) and as the per the rules of promotion, the petitioner is entitled to Grade 4 upon completion of 8 years of service in Grade 1 and then to Grade 7 upon completion of 5 years of service in Grade 4. 5. The learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner was appointed as teacher on 28.01.1988 with educational qualification of B.Sc. and M.Sc. and after joining the petitioner obtained teachers’ training for which the certificate of training was issued on 20.04.1988 from David Hare College of Correspondence College, Kolkata. 6. 5. The learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner was appointed as teacher on 28.01.1988 with educational qualification of B.Sc. and M.Sc. and after joining the petitioner obtained teachers’ training for which the certificate of training was issued on 20.04.1988 from David Hare College of Correspondence College, Kolkata. 6. He submits that there was a dispute regarding validity of teachers’ training of the petitioner and many others from David Hare College of Correspondence College, Kolkata on the ground that the said college was not recognized by NCTE (National Council of Teachers’ Training) and ultimately the issue has been settled by virtue of the order contained in Annexure – 2 passed pursuant to order passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No.2780 of 2006 with W.P.(S) No.4954 of 2006 in which the petitioner was also the party. He has referred to Annexure - 2 to submit that the name of the petitioner appears at Sl. no.1; the date of appointment has been mentioned as 1988 and the date of passing of the teachers’ training examination has been shown as 20.04.88. The learned counsel submits that in view of the aforesaid order contained in Annexure – 2, the petitioner became entitled for promotion under the aforesaid Promotion Rules of 1993. 7. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner, through the Association, has raised objection regarding the seniority list, but as per the writ petition, the said seniority list has not been finalized and the representation challenging the seniority list has also not been disposed of. The learned counsel submits that some to the teachers, who were trained subsequently have been granted grade 4 vide memo number 706 dated 31.03.2020 (Annexure – 6). The learned counsel submits that the petitioner has been deprived of promotion and therefore, the present writ petition has been filed seeking a mandamus upon the respondents. Arguments of the Respondents 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that an order contained in Memo No.6752 dated 24.12.2020 has been passed indicating that there was a complete ban in the matter of promotion with immediate effect. Arguments of the Respondents 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that an order contained in Memo No.6752 dated 24.12.2020 has been passed indicating that there was a complete ban in the matter of promotion with immediate effect. However, from perusal of the counter-affidavit, it has been clearly mentioned in para 8 that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in general category on 28.01.1988; passed the teachers training on 20.04.1988; was entitled to Grade 1 pay scale on 28.01.1988; was entitled for Grade 2 from 28.01.2000 and his name appeared in Gradation list, but the position of the petitioner in the gradation list has not been mentioned in the counter-affidavit. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that if the seniority list has not yet been finalized, then the same can be taken care of and consequently, the case for promotion can also be considered, but in view of Annexure - A to the counter-affidavit the entire process of promotion has been stopped. Rejoinder arguments of the Petitioner 9. In response, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(S). No.1390 of 2021 and has referred to para 34 thereof wherein the said Memo No.6752 dated 24.12.2020 issued by the Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand has been quashed and set aside and as a result, a direction has been issued to the concerned Head of the Departments to grant promotion to the petitioners of those cases, whose case were considered for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee. The learned counsel also submits that in view of the aforesaid judgment, Annexure - A to the counter affidavit does not exist anymore as it has been quashed by this Court. The learned counsel has also submitted that he is not aware as to whether the seniority list of the petitioner and other similarly situated persons has so far been finalized or not. Findings of this Court 10. It appears from the records of this case that many persons including the petitioner having teachers’ training from the institute namely David Hare College of correspondence Kolkata and passed the training on various dates during the year 1988 to 1991, whose detail have been mentioned in Annexure – 2 of the present writ petition. Findings of this Court 10. It appears from the records of this case that many persons including the petitioner having teachers’ training from the institute namely David Hare College of correspondence Kolkata and passed the training on various dates during the year 1988 to 1991, whose detail have been mentioned in Annexure – 2 of the present writ petition. All of them were appointed prior to 1988 on the post of teacher in primary/middle school. Vide memo dated 04.01.2006 passed by District Superintendent of Education Sahibganj, the pay scale of the petitioner and others was reduced to the initial pay scale drawn by a teacher in primary school. 11. A dispute arose alleging that the institute namely David Hare College of Correspondence Kolkata was not recognized by NCTE, though, the NCTE Act had come into force only in the year 1995 and the petitioner had obtained the training certificate much prior to 1995. This issue was ultimately resolved by this Court in W.P.(S). No.2780 of 2006 with W.P.(S). 4954 of 2006 in favour of the petitioners and this Court found that the petitioners had obtained their training certificate from the aforesaid David Hare College of Correspondence, Kolkata between 1983 to April, 1991 i.e much prior to coming into force of NCTE Act. This Court also considered the judgment passed by Hon’ble Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No.8829 of 1989 (Md. Halim and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar) decided on 18.12.1997 wherein it was held that the persons who got their training certificate from David Hare College of Correspondence Kolkata were entitled for being appointed on the post of Assistant Trained Teacher as they had obtained the certificate prior to coming into force of NCTE Act. Similar view was taken by this Court in the case of Sarbani Bose Vs. State of Jharkhand passed in W.P.(S). No.5412 of 2005 against which L.P.A. No.400 of 2006 was dismissed vide order dated 24.11.2006 and the S.L.P was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In aforesaid background, the decision dated 04.01.2006 was set aside by observing that the same was taken without issuance of show cause notice and the respondents were directed to take fresh decision. No.5412 of 2005 against which L.P.A. No.400 of 2006 was dismissed vide order dated 24.11.2006 and the S.L.P was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In aforesaid background, the decision dated 04.01.2006 was set aside by observing that the same was taken without issuance of show cause notice and the respondents were directed to take fresh decision. Consequently, vide Annexure -2, the respondents have taken fresh decision showing the date of passing of the teachers’ training exam of the petitioners during the period as mentioned above and it was also held that the petitioners are entitled for the promotion in terms of 1993 Rules. 12. It further appears that the petitioners had filed a Contempt Petition being Cont. Case (Civil) No. 583 of 2013 wherein, the learned counsel for the petitioners had very fairly submitted to this Court that the respondents had issued office order dated 03.01.2013 and it was mentioned that the seniority list shall be prepared in accordance with 1993 Rules and the promotion will be given on the basis of said seniority list. Thereafter, the seniority list was published and it was observed by this Court that if any person had any grievance with regard to the placement in the seniority list for grant of promotion, they are entitled to file representation. It seems that vide Annexure – 4 series grievance was raised in connection with the position in the seniority list, but the same has not yet been finalized as mentioned in the writ petition. 13. From perusal of the Memo No.706 dated 31.03.2020 (Annexure – 6), it appears that the same has been passed pursuant to order passed in W.P.(S). No.5188 of 2004 dated 12.07.2011 (Bishnu Kumar Das & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand) (Annexure – 5). From perusal of the order passed in W.P.(S). No.5188 of 2004 (Annexure – 5), it appears that the petitioners of the said case, total 41 in number, had challenged the inaction of the State Government in not granting them promotion in the B.Sc. Trained Scale in terms of Rule – 4 and 5 of the Bihar Nationalized Primary School Teachers Promotion Rule, 1993 and the promotion was claimed in confirmation with the gradation list finalized and circulated on 16.09.2003. The petitioners of the said case were appointed as Assistant Teachers having B.Sc. Trained Scale in terms of Rule – 4 and 5 of the Bihar Nationalized Primary School Teachers Promotion Rule, 1993 and the promotion was claimed in confirmation with the gradation list finalized and circulated on 16.09.2003. The petitioners of the said case were appointed as Assistant Teachers having B.Sc. qualification and have been teaching for very long time almost from the year 1981-1982 and the State Government had terminated their services on the ground that their initial appointment was without following the appropriate procedure of law. It was contested up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Apex Court took note of the fact that these teachers were teaching for a very long time almost from the year 1981-82 and therefore, they were entitled to all the benefits. Thereafter, the department invited application for appointment after the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and pursuant to Advertisement in the year 1988, the petitioners of the said case were entitled for the benefit from the initial date of appointment in spirit of the Apex Court judgment dated 07.02.1991. In the said background, the petitioners of the said case were imparted training during continuation of the service and there was no dispute regarding the training certificate, therefore, they claimed entitlement of promotion in accordance with Rules of 1993, which clearly provided that promotion to Grade 4 required a trained teacher, who has put in 8 years of service. In this background, this Court in W.P.(S). No.5188 of 2004 directed the State Government to take appropriate decision with regard to promotion w.e.f. the actual date when the promotion accrued in their favour computing their period of service from the initial date of appointment as directed by the Apex Court. 14. So far as the present petitioner is concerned, the seniority list has not yet been finalized regarding which objection is pending and the respondents in their counter-affidavit have taken specific stand that the case of the petitioner is not similar to that of the teachers, who were petitioners in W.P.(S). No.5188 of 2004. 15. This Court finds that the petitioner through its Union had made a representation before the District Superintendent of Education Sahebganj vide letter dated 03.10.2016 wherein objection regarding seniority has been raised. No.5188 of 2004. 15. This Court finds that the petitioner through its Union had made a representation before the District Superintendent of Education Sahebganj vide letter dated 03.10.2016 wherein objection regarding seniority has been raised. The said objection has not been considered so far as is apparent from the present writ petition and accordingly, no fresh seniority list has been annexed by the petitioner along with the writ petition. It is not clear from the records of the case as to the present status of the seniority list. There can be no doubt that preparation of seniority list is a condition precedent for grant of promotion as claimed by the petitioner. 16. In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction upon the respondent no.4 to finalize the seniority list of the petitioner and similarly situated persons, if not already finalized, in accordance with law but not later than 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondent no.4 is directed to take into consideration the objection raised by the Association of the petitioner vide letter dated 03.10.2016 which has been annexed at page 55 of the writ petition. The Respondent no.4 is also directed to take up the matter of promotion of the eligible persons in terms of the aforesaid Rules of 1993, and as per law, taking into consideration all the relevant, circulars, notifications etc. and such exercise be also completed not later than 6 months from the date of finalization of the seniority list. 17. The petitioner is directed to produce a copy of this order as well as the records of this case and also the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No.1390 of 2021 before the respondents no.4 along with the representation. 18. This writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. 19. Interim order, if any, is vacated. 20. Pending Interlocutory application, if any, is closed.