JUDGMENT : SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J. 1. The instant intra-court appeal, under Clause-10 of letters patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 15.02.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Contempt Case (Civil) No. 355 of 2017, whereby and whereunder, the part of the order, by which, the direction has been passed upon the Secretary, Department School Education and Literacy, Government of Jharkhand to ensure that necessary order is issued within four weeks granting notional promotion to the petitioner in Grade-VII, on the basis of which, his post-retiral benefit shall be calculated and paid, has been challenged on the ground that the contempt Court has got no jurisdiction to pass an order assuming the power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The brief facts of the case, which required to be enumerated, are as hereunder: It is the case that the writ petitioner was appointed as untrained B.Sc. Science teacher on 15.04.1983 and after obtaining the training, he became eligible for graduate trained scale. Accordingly, the petitioner was promoted by the respondents’ authorities in the higher graduate trained scale w.e.f. 01.07.1992. Further, in terms of Bihar Taken Over Elementary School Teacher Promotion Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred as the ‘Rule’ 1993) and in consequent upon the grant of promotion in Grade-IV w.e.f.01.07.1992, the petitioner became eligible for promotion to the post of Grade-VI and Grade-VII. However, the respondents’ authorities in spite of 1993 Rules as adopted in the State of Jharkhand, did not act upon the same. Seniority position of assistant teachers in various grade, has not been finalized. Promotion to the petitioner in higher grade was also not provided. The petitioner, on attaining the age of superannuation, had retired from service on 31.01.2016 and his retiral dues has been fixed on the basis of last drawn pay, which is too less. Later on, the respondents’ authorities had called for the details of the eligible assistant teachers for providing seniority and consideration of their case for promotion in Grade-VI/VII. Accordingly, the petitioner, vide his letter dated 29.08.2016 has forwarded his details in 56 columns for inclusion and finalization of Gradation list of assistant teacher. Thereafter, a database of assistant teachers for promotion in Grade-VII has been uploaded by the respondent authority concerned including the several junior persons, except the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner, vide his letter dated 29.08.2016 has forwarded his details in 56 columns for inclusion and finalization of Gradation list of assistant teacher. Thereafter, a database of assistant teachers for promotion in Grade-VII has been uploaded by the respondent authority concerned including the several junior persons, except the petitioner. For redressal of his grievance, the writ petitioner has preferred writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 6625 of 2016 which was disposed of vide order dated 30.01.2017 by the learned Single Judge in terms of order passed in W.P. (S) No. 6135 of 2015 and direction was issued to the respondents’ authorities to follow the provision of Rules, 1993 and promotion on the basis of vacancies, shall be made strictly as per the seniority list and it shall also be put on the website. In terms of the order dated 30.01.2017, the petitioner has represented before the District Superintendent of Education, Jamshedpur vide letter dated 27.02.2017 but the respondent concerned has not complied with the order dated 30.01.2017 passed in W.P. (S) No. 6625 of 2016. Thereafter, for ventilating his grievance, the petitioner has preferred contempt case being Contempt Case (Civil) No. 335 of 2017, wherein, the learned Single Judge vide order dated 15.02.2019, while closing the contempt case, has issued direction to the Secretary, Department of School Education and Literacy, Government of Jharkhand by ensuring that necessary order is issued within four weeks granting notional promotion to the petitioner in Grade-VII, on the basis of which, his post-retiral benefits shall be calculated and paid. The respondent/appellant has challenged that part of the order which was passed by the contempt Court, hence, the instant appeal has been filed. It is evident from the factual aspect that the writ petitioner has approached this Court for issuance of direction upon the respondents to grant appropriate Grade in terms of Bihar Taken Over Elementary School Teachers Promotion Rules, 1993, since, the benefit of promotion in favour of the writ petitioner was denied. A writ petition was filed being W.P. (S) No. 6135 of 2015 and the same was disposed of by passing the following directions: “3. Promotion to the petitioners is regulated under the Bihar Taken Over Elementary School Teachers Promotion Rules, 1993, which is in operation in the State of Jharkhand also. A writ petition was filed being W.P. (S) No. 6135 of 2015 and the same was disposed of by passing the following directions: “3. Promotion to the petitioners is regulated under the Bihar Taken Over Elementary School Teachers Promotion Rules, 1993, which is in operation in the State of Jharkhand also. Rule 4 lays down conditions for promotion and Rule 5 provides for minimum educational and training qualifications as well as minimum tenure of service for promotion in different grades. Rule 7 of 1993 Rules provides that a draft of seniority list for promotion shall be prepared by the end of the month of January of each year. The manner for preparation of draft seniority list for promotion has been laid down under Rule 7. In terms of Rule 8 inter-se seniority in the same grade is decided. The Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand-respondent no. 2 has filed affidavit dated 06.12.2016 narrating the procedure for preparation of draft seniority list and the manner in which promotion is made. 4. The respondent no. 2 has asserted that the exercise for preparation of draft seniority list and promotion would take three months' time. Since orders in individual cases have subsequently presented serious difficulty and many a times several writ petitions are filed by other employees claiming themselves senior to the petitioners who had approached the Court prior in time, no positive direction can be issued in the instant writ petition for considering claim of the petitioners alone for promotion. In my opinion, 1993 Promotion Rules are required to be followed scrupulously to avoid unwanted dissatisfaction amongst government employees which have led to unwarranted litigations. In view of the affidavit by the respondent no. 2, it is hereby ordered that mandate of Bihar Taken Over Elementary School Teachers Promotion Rules, 1993 shall be followed in its letter and spirit, however, subject to just exceptions, in all the districts of the State of Jharkhand. 5. In order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority, and for providing the practical regime for right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of the public authorities, the Right to Information Act, 2005 was enacted. Section 3 of 2005 Act provides that all citizens, subject to the provisions of the Act, shall have the right to information. Section 3 of 2005 Act provides that all citizens, subject to the provisions of the Act, shall have the right to information. Section 4 provides that every public authority shall maintain its records duly catalogued and indexed in a manner and the form which facilitates the right to information under the Act. Sub-section 2 to Section 4 provides that every public authority shall constantly endeavor to take steps to provide as much information suo-moto to the public at regular intervals through means of communications, including internet, so that the public have minimum resort to the use of 2005 Act to obtain information. Preparation of seniority list may be objected to by any individual teacher and accordingly, the provisional seniority list prepared under Rule 7 shall be put on the Website of the Department and there shall be provision for submitting on-line objections, besides written objection to the Establishment Committee. Promotions on the vacancies which have arisen shall be made strictly according to the seniority list and it shall also be put on the Website.” Another writ petition was filed being W.P. (S) No. 6625 of 2016 seeking therein that to grant appropriate Grade in terms of the Bihar Taken Over Elementary School Teachers Promotion Rules, 1993, since, on the basis of direction already passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 6135 of 2015, wherein, the direction was passed to the effect that the provisional seniority list prepared under Rule 7 shall be put on the Website of the Department and there shall be provision for submitting on-line objections, besides written objection to the Establishment Committee. Promotions on the vacancies which have arisen shall be made strictly according to the seniority list and it shall also be put on the Website. The writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 6625 of 2016 was disposed of in the light of the order passed in W.P. (S) No. 6135 of 2015 by holding therein that in the light of the order passed therein, the claim of the petitioner is not required to be adjudicated by this Court independently and accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of in terms of order passed in W.P. (S) No. 6135 of 2015. The writ petitioner, has filed a contempt case being Contempt Case (Civil) No. 355 of 2017 alleging therein willful violation of the order dated 30.01.2017 passed in W.P. (S) No. 6625 of 2016, which was filed by him seeking a direction upon the respondents to grant Promotion/Grade in terms of Bihar Taken Over Elementary School Teachers Promotion Rules, 1993. The Contempt Court has passed an order by taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner, whose eligibility and suitability for grant of Grade-VII have not been denied and at least two persons junior to him have been granted Grade-VII, has been denied this benefit solely for the reasons attributable to the respondents, therefore, while closing the contempt, has directed the Secretary, Department of School Education and Literacy, Government of Jharkhand by ensuring that necessary order is issued within four weeks granting notional promotion to the petitioner in Grade-VII, on the basis of which, his post-retiral benefits shall be calculated and paid, which is the subject matter of the instant appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant/respondent by taking the ground that the order of direction to the effect upon the Secretary, Department of School Education and Literacy, Government of Jharkhand for ensuring that necessary order is issued within four weeks granting notional promotion to the petitioner in Grade-VII, on the basis of which, his post-retiral benefits shall be calculated and paid, is a direction passed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which cannot be passed once the contempt case has been closed. 3. While on the other hand, Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that the direction, so passed, which is in question in this appeal, cannot be construed to be a fresh direction, rather, the same is further direction by making the reference of the direction passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 6135 of 2015 directing the concerned respondent to prepare seniority list in pursuant to the provision as contained under Bihar Taken Over Elementary School Teachers Promotion Rules, 1993 which is to be uploaded on the Website of the Department in order to apprise the aggrieved, if any so as to file written objection. The further direction was passed in that writ petition that the promotion, on the vacancies which have been arisen shall be made strictly according to the seniority list and it shall also be put on the Website. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, the seniority list was prepared but the case of the writ petitioner was not considered for promotion then the contempt case was filed being Contempt Case (Civil) No. 355 of 2017. The State-Opposite Party has appeared and it would be evident from paragraph-11 of the impugned order that the petitioner has been found to be eligible and suitable for grant of Grade-VII as also it has been admitted in the show cause that at least two persons junior to him, have been granted Grade-VII, but such benefit of promotion to the higher post has been denied to the petitioner. Learned counsel, therefore, has submitted that the contempt Court while closing the contempt has passed further direction upon the respondents by taking into consideration the admission on their part at paragraph-11 to the impugned order, wherein, the grant of promotion to the junior has been admitted denying the same to the writ petitioner without any reason. 4. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also considered the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 5. This Court has gathered from the material available on record and the argument advanced on behalf of the parties that the direction to the effect upon the Secretary, Department of School Education and Literacy, Government of Jharkhand for ensuring that necessary order is issued within four weeks granting notional promotion to the petitioner in Grade-VII, on the basis of which, his post-retiral benefits shall be calculated and paid, is under challenge by agitating the ground that the same cannot be passed while closing the contempt, since, the same has been passed, therefore, the same will be said to be an order passed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, hence, the instant appeal. 6. The fact about the aforesaid direction by assuming the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the maintainability of the instant appeal, are require to be considered. 7. 6. The fact about the aforesaid direction by assuming the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the maintainability of the instant appeal, are require to be considered. 7. This Court is to answer as to whether the aforesaid direction, can be construed to be a further direction maintaining the instant appeal against the order passed by the contempt Court. 8. There is no dispute about the settled position of law that if there is any direction by the contempt Court, the same is construed to be a direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and as such, against such direction, intra-court appeal will be maintainable, reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank Ltd. and Others vs. Chunilal Nanda and Others, (2006) 5 SCC 399 , wherein, at paragraph-11(v), it has been held as under: “11. The position emerging from these decisions, in regard to appeals against orders in contempt proceedings may be summarised thus: (V) If the High Court, for whatsoever reason, decides an issue or makes any direction, relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties, in a contempt proceedings, the aggrieved person is not without remedy. Such an order is open to challenge in an intra-court appeal (if the order was of a learned Single Judge and there is a provision for an intra-court appeal), or by seeking special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India (in other cases).” 9. Here in the instant case, this Court considering the aforesaid direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by holding the intra-court appeal maintainable, is now proceeding to examine as to whether the aforesaid direction can be said to suffer from any impropriety. 10. It appears from the order dated 06.12.2016 passed in W.P. (S) No. 6135 of 2015, wherein, the order has been passed on consideration of grievance raised about denial of promotion and hence, the direction was passed as referred hereinabove. The list was prepared but the writ petitioner has been denied with promotion, therefore, another writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 6625 of 2016 which was disposed of on 30.01.2017, wherein, by making reference of the order dated 06.12.2016 passed in W.P. (S) No. 6135 of 2015, the following order was passed: “4. The list was prepared but the writ petitioner has been denied with promotion, therefore, another writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 6625 of 2016 which was disposed of on 30.01.2017, wherein, by making reference of the order dated 06.12.2016 passed in W.P. (S) No. 6135 of 2015, the following order was passed: “4. In the light of the order passed in W.P. (S) No. 6135 of 2015, the claim of the petitioner is not required to be adjudicated by this Court independently and accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of in terms of order passed in W.P. (S) No. 6135 of 2015.” Even then, the order has not been complied with, therefore, contempt case being Contempt Case (Civil) No. 355 of 2017 has been filed, in which, show cause notice has been filed. It appears from the impugned order that the petitioner has been found to be eligible and suitable for grant of Grade-VII as also it has been admitted that at least two person junior to the respondent. The writ petitioner has been granted promotion to Grade-VII but such benefit of promotion to the higher post has been denied to the writ petitioner, for ready reference, paragraph-11 of the impugned order is being referred herein: “11. Thirdly, the petitioner, whose eligibility and suitability for grant of Grade-VII have not been denied and at least two persons junior to him have been granted Grade-VII, has been denied this benefit solely for the reasons attributable to the respondents; it was only after the orders passed by the writ-Court that some semblance of stream-lining the process of promotion was restored.” 11. The contempt Court after taking into consideration the fact that two persons junior to the respondent, the writ petitioner, has been granted promotion to Grade-VII, denying the said benefit to the writ petitioner, even though, the writ petitioner has been found to be eligible and in absence of any reason of non-consideration of the case of the writ petitioner, while closing the contempt case, has directed the Secretary, Department of School Education and Literacy, Government of Jharkhand to ensure that necessary order is issued within four weeks granting notional promotion to the petitioner in Grade-VII, on the basis of which, his post-retiral benefits shall be calculated and paid, which according to our considered view, cannot be said to suffer from an error, for the reason that once the fact has been admitted by the State-appellant that the writ petitioner is eligible but even then, the promotion has not been granted and hence, the denial of the same and granting promotion to the juniors, cannot be considered to be proper action of the State-respondent and in that view of the matter, the aforesaid decision passed by the contempt Court, cannot be said to suffer from an error. 12. This Court, while hearing the matter on 16.02.2023 has passed an order, wherein, the State was directed to file an affidavit as also to come with the original record pertaining to consideration so made by the DPC or the Establishment Committee, basis upon which, recommendation has been made for granting promotion, for its perusal, in pursuant thereto, the record has been produced for its perusal and on the basis of the same, it has been found that duly constituted Committee has recommended the case of the writ petitioner for grant of promotion but even then, the promotion has not been granted. 13. Mr. Manish Mishra, learned G.P.-V for the State, in presence of District Superintendent of Education, has admitted that the writ petitioner has wrong fully been denied the benefit of promotion, even though, he has found to be eligible and by ignoring his case, the juniors have been granted promotion. 14. 13. Mr. Manish Mishra, learned G.P.-V for the State, in presence of District Superintendent of Education, has admitted that the writ petitioner has wrong fully been denied the benefit of promotion, even though, he has found to be eligible and by ignoring his case, the juniors have been granted promotion. 14. This Court, in view of the aforesaid submission, is of the view that the State cannot question the direction passed by the contempt Court when there is error apparent on the part of the State in denying the writ petitioner the benefit of promotion, even though, he has been found to be eligible while granting benefit of promotion to two juniors. 15. This Court considering the aforesaid fact is of the view that the part of the order as has been assailed herein to the effect that the Secretary, Department of School Education and Literacy, Government of Jharkhand for ensuring that necessary order is issued within four weeks granting notional promotion to the petitioner in Grade-VII, on the basis of which his post-retiral benefits shall be calculated and paid, requires no interference as per the discussion made hereinabove. 16. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is, dismissed. 17. In consequent to dismissal of this appeal, I.A. No. 10181 of 2019 and I.A. No. 7487 of 2022 also stand dismissed.