JUDGMENT : DEEPAK ROSHAN , J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying for quashing and setting aside the office order dated 22.03.2023 (Annexure-12) & 29.06.2016 (Annexure-10); whereby the promotion of the petitioners to Grade-4 has been cancelled and further the petitioners have also prayed for a direction upon the respondents not to revise the salary of the petitioners. 3. The brief facts of the case as delineated in the writ petition is that the erstwhile State of Bihar vide notification no. 28 framed the rules namely Bihar Elementary Teacher Promotion Rules, 1993 (hereinafter to be referred as Promotion Rules-1993) which was notified on 08.07.1993. Relevant rules for the purpose of adjudication of the present case are definition clause, Rule 5 (2), 5 (4), 6 & 7. 4. The petitioners were appointed to the post of Assistant Teachers. Prior to their appointment, they have completed their training and the results of the training were published immediately after their appointment. As per the Promotion Rules-1993, the petitioners have been granted the matric trained scale and after completion of 8 years of service, they were entitled to Grade IV. The exact dates of appointment and completion of training of the petitioners are given below:- i. Petitioner No. 1 was appointed on 28.09.1994 and he completed his training on 19.04.1995. ii. Petitioner No. 2 was appointed on 28.09.1994 and completed training on 19.04.1995. iii. Petitioner No. 3 was appointed on 29.09.1994 and completed training on 19.04.1995. iv. Petitioner No. 4 was appointed on 30.09.1994 and completed training on 19.04.1995. v. Petitioner No. 5 was appointed on 01.10.1994 and completed training on 09.02.1995. vi. Petitioner No. 6 was appointed on 28.09.1994 and completed training on 14.04.1995. vii. Petitioner No. 7 was appointed on 30.09.1994 and completed training on 19.04.1995. 5. One writ petition with similar issue as that of the petitioners fell for consideration before this Court vide W.P. (S) No. 638/2006 (Arun Sinha & Ors. v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.). The issue before the Court was whether the scale of matric trained shall be granted from the date of appointment or from the date the incumbent passes the training examination; another issue was with regard to the inter-se seniority between the incumbents. v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.). The issue before the Court was whether the scale of matric trained shall be granted from the date of appointment or from the date the incumbent passes the training examination; another issue was with regard to the inter-se seniority between the incumbents. The Writ Court disposed of the writ petition vide judgment dated 04.04.2008 with the observation as under: “ Considering the facts and circumstances, the pay of the petitioner of matric scale shall be given from the date of appointment, further the petitioner’s case should be considered for fixing their seniority from the date of their appointment .” 6. The State preferred an appeal being L.P.A. No. 214/2008 (The State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Arun Sinha & Ors.) against the order passed in W.P. (S) No. 638/2006 where upon hearing the said appeal, the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.11.2012 upheld the judgment of the Learned Single Judge. The observations of the Division Bench are as follows: “ Learned Single Judge has carefully considered all the issues involved in the petition and found that the petitioners were though appointed in the year 1993-94 but they were not provided training by the fault of the State only and even the training was provided only after passing of the order by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 05.9.1997. Even when the petitioners completed training in the year 1999, their result was not published and after intervention of the Court, that result was published in the year 2002. Therefore, in that fact situation the petitioners are not at fault in obtaining training. Not only this, but in our considered opinion also, once seniority is required to be determined in view of the Circular dated 25.6.1999 and that stands determined because of that Circular and the same could not be made ineffective by the subsequent withdrawal of the said Circular by the State Cabinet with retrospective effect. However, that was not the issue decided by the learned Single Judge as it has been raised by the petitioners but effect of that Circular, which has already been given, cannot be taken away and in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that there is no merit in these L.P.As. which are, accordingly, dismissed .” 7. which are, accordingly, dismissed .” 7. Being aggrieve by the order passed by the Division Bench, the State preferred an appeal vide S.L.P. No. 5527/2013 (State of Jharkhand v. Arun Sinha & Ors.) before the Hon’ble Apex Court and the same has also been dismissed vide order dated 08.03.2013. 8. It further transpires from record that the case of the petitioners was considered for promotion from Grade 1 to Grade 4 and the petitioners were granted retrospective promotions vide memo no. 1081 dated 03.05.2010. It was though stated in the order of promotion that any adverse order passed in L.P.A. No. 214/2008 which affects the promotion of the petitioners including others shall be effective. 9. One anther writ petition i.e. W.P. (S) No. 3112/2013 (Sunil Kumar Verma & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand) was decided by this Court on 18.06.2013 wherein the order was passed in the light of the judgment rendered in W.P. (S) No. 2194/2013 (Ravindra Kumar Ojha & Ors. v. The State of Jharkhand) wherein it was held that the petitioners in the said Writ Petition were entitled to get Grade – I from the respective date of their joining and not from the date of completion of the Teachers Training and are entitled to get all consequential benefits accordingly. 10. It further transpires from record that the Department of School Education and Literacy, State of Jharkhand, in compliance of the aforesaid orders passed by this Court as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Arun Sinha & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand, vide its notification no. 3027 dated 14.12.2015 (Annexure-6) has resolved the issue regarding the contemporary seniority of the untrained teachers appointed in the year 1987, 1988, as well as in 1994 and 1999-2000. It also appears from the contents of the said Resolution that the State Government attempted to distinguish the appointments made in the year 1987 and 1988 and the appointments made under the Rules of 1991 in the year 1994 and 1999-2000. According to clause 15, following decisions were taken in the cabinet meeting held on 08.12.2015:- i. For the promotion of the aforesaid appointments made in 1987, 1988, the seniority amongst them shall be considered from their date of appointment and the promotion shall be governed by 1993 rules. ii. According to clause 15, following decisions were taken in the cabinet meeting held on 08.12.2015:- i. For the promotion of the aforesaid appointments made in 1987, 1988, the seniority amongst them shall be considered from their date of appointment and the promotion shall be governed by 1993 rules. ii. The seniority of Matric untrained Teachers appointed on the post of Matric Trained teacher in the year 1994 and 1999 -2000 shall be determined amongst them from the date of their appointment. 11. It further transpires that the DSE, Gumla passed an office order on 29.06.2016 (Annexure-10) and cancelled the promotions granted to the petitioners vide his office memo no. 1081 dated 03.05.2010 on the ground that the promotion granted to the petitioners in Grade-IV was on a condition that the promotion shall be affected if any adverse order is passed in L.P.A. No. 214/2008 or by the Department in the light of the said decision in L.P.A. No. 214/2008. The said respondents took reference of the Resolution No. 3027 dated 14.12.2015 and a decision has been taken in the Establishment Committee on 29.06.2016. 12. The specific case of the petitioners is that neither any adverse order was passed in L.P.A. No. 214/2008 nor the State Resolution dated 14.12.2015 and was not in any manner affecting the petitioners who were already promoted in the light of the orders passed in the case of Arun Sinha (supra); wherein the order was rather sustained and upheld in L.P.A. No. 214/2008 and Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 5520-5522/2013. However, the State Government has later on modified its aforesaid decision as contained in Resolution No. 3027 dated 14.12.2015 & vide Resolution contained in Memo No. 1145 dated 18.07.2019 apart from other modifications and stipulations, in Clause 7 (ka) and 7 (kh) (i) it was made clear that the already trained teachers and teachers who were granted Garde-I scale in the light of various orders of the Hon’ble Court and promoted under the Promotion Rules-1993 in accordance with law shall remain unaffected even in case of re-determination of seniority in Grade-I. The relevant portion of the Resolution dated 18.07.2019 is being quoted hereinbelow:- 13. It is further case of the petitioners that the Department of School, Education and Literacy, Government of Jharkhand further issued an office order vide memo no. It is further case of the petitioners that the Department of School, Education and Literacy, Government of Jharkhand further issued an office order vide memo no. 619 dated 26.08.2021 (Annexure-8), further clarifying the previous Resolutions dated 14.12.2015 and 18.07.2019 and in Clause iv of the decision portion of the said office order it was again clearly stipulated and provided that the already granted promotions shall not be cancelled; however in case of the availability of posts found on anterior dates, date of promotion shall be modified on notional basis. 14. A Counter Affidavit has been filed by the respondent State controverting the stand of the petitioners wherein in paragraph 14 and 15 it has been contended that the petitioners were promoted in Grade IV scale with a condition that in event of any discrepancy in promotion, the promotions shall be treated to be cancelled and excess amount taken by them shall be recovered. The promotion was given with a condition that the same will be subject to final order passed in L.P.A. No. 214/2008. It has also been stated by the said respondents in paragraph 16 that the Departmental Resolution No. 3027 dated 14.12.2015 & Departmental Resolution No. 1145 dated 18.07.2019 have been passed pursuant to order passed in the said L.P.A. and according to the provisions of the resolution, the seniority of the petitioners shall be affected by other teachers appointed in the year 1982, 1987, 1988 & 1994. Further stand of the Respondents State authorities is that the letter no. 1080 dated 21.09.2016 (status quo order) was neither approved nor ordered by the competent authority. (Refer Para-17) 15. The petitioners have filed Rejoinder in response to the Counter Affidavit controverting the stand taken by the respondents. 16. Mr. Ajit Kumar, Ld. Sr. Counsel representing the petitioners has argued that from perusal of the order passed in L.P.A. No. 214/2008 and Resolution dated 14.12.2015 read with Resolution dated 18.07.2019 and Office Order dated 26.08.2021, it is evident that no adverse order was passed either in L.P.A. No. 214/2008 nor any adverse decision has been taken regarding the earlier promotions granted to trained teachers category in which the present petitioners fall; rather vide Clause 7 ka (i) of memo no. 1145 dated 18.07.2019 as well as Clause (iv) of memo no. 1145 dated 18.07.2019 as well as Clause (iv) of memo no. 619 dated 26.08.2021, it was clarified by the respondents themselves that earlier promotion granted to the trained teachers shall not be affected but in a most arbitrary manner, the promotion granted to the petitioners has been cancelled. Further, it has been argued by the Ld. Sr. Counsel that the cancellation of promotion of the petitioners vide impugned order 29.06.2016 is rather in teeth of the order passed in the L.P.A. which was also affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 5520-5522/2013. It has further been contended that the State decisions also protected the promotions already granted, thus the impugned order is fit to be quashed and set aside and the promotions already granted to the petitioners be directed to be protected and the seniority of the petitioners in Grade-I shall be treated intact from the date of their initial appointment and admittedly the petitioners have completed 8 years in Grade -I, therefore they were very much entitled to promotions in Grade-IV as was allowed to them vide order passed on 03.05.2010. 17. Mr. Ravi Prakash Mishra, A.C. to AAG-II appearing for the respondents opposes the arguments advanced by the petitioners and have heavily relied upon the Resolution No. 3027 dated 14.12.2015 and order passed in L.P.A. No. 214/2008 and submits that the promotion earlier granted to the petitioners has not been found in terms of the provisions as contained in Resolution No. 3027 dated 14.12.2015 which was issued pursuant to the order passed by this High Court in W.P.(S) No. 638/2006, L.P.A. No. 214/2008 and S.L.A No. 5520-5522 of 2013, therefore, the letter No. 1189 dated 29.06.2016 and letter no. 471 dated 22.03.2023 have rightly been issued. It has furthermore been argued that the petitioners cannot take any advantage from the provisions of the later state resolutions issued on 18.07.2019 and 26.08.2021. 18. Having considered the arguments advanced by the counsels of both the parties, this Court finds that the petitioners were granted promotion by a competent decision of District Establishment Committee, Gumla in view of the decision of this High Court in Arun Sinha & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors . 18. Having considered the arguments advanced by the counsels of both the parties, this Court finds that the petitioners were granted promotion by a competent decision of District Establishment Committee, Gumla in view of the decision of this High Court in Arun Sinha & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors . [W.P. (S) No. 638/2006]; wherein it was ordered that the petitioners of that case should be considered for fixing their seniority from the date of their appointment and they should also be considered for giving benefit of Grade – IV scales after completion of 8/12 years of their service. 19. It is further borne from the records that an LPA No. 214/2008 was pending before this court; therefore, in condition no. (v) of the said office order dated 03.05.2010 it was stipulated that the promotions granted shall be affected in case any adverse order is passed in appeal or by the department in that light. This Court further finds that the concerned LPA No. 214/2008 rather affirmed the order passed by the writ court in W.P.(S). no. 638/2006 and further the same was affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) no. 5520-5522/2013, therefore it is clear that instead of any adverse order; the higher courts affirmed the judgment of this court rendered in the case of Arun Sinha (supra), thus the condition no. (v) as contained in the promotion order of the petitioners dated 03.05.2010 did not permit the respondents to annul the order of promotion of the petitioners. 20. So far as the State resolutions are concerned; there is no doubt that initially the resolution issued by the State government on 14.12.2015 (Annexure-6) was unclear and so far as the already granted promotions are concerned, it is evident that in a resolution issued on 18.07.2019 (Annexure-7) and office order dated 26.08.2021 (Annexure- 8); the already granted promotions were directed to be protected. 21. This court finds that vide state resolution dated 18.07.2019 and office order dated 26.08.2021, the respondents made distinctions between the appointees in the years 1982 to 2012 and the appointees of the year 1994 and 1999-2000; but however, it was made clear in clause 7(kha) (i) of the resolution dated 18.07.2019 and clause (iv) of the office order dated 26.08.2021 that the promotions already granted shall not be affected. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid resolutions/office order of the respondents and judgments delivered by this court in the case of Arun Singh (supra) makes it evident that the claims of the petitioners are well founded. 22. Accordingly, this Court finds that the writ petition preferred by the writ petitioners is fit to be allowed; therefore, impugned orders cancelling the promotions of the petitioners dated 29.06.2016 (Annexure-10) and subsequent similar order dated 22.03.2023 (Annexure-12), are hereby, quashed and set aside and this Court holds the petitioners to be entitled to all the consequential benefits arising from their original order of their promotion dated 03.05.2010 (Annexure-2). 23. Consequently, the instant writ application stands allowed. Pending I.A.s, if any stands closed.