2025:JHHC:33582 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 1894 of 2017 --------- 1. Vijay Narayan Dubey, Son of Ramjavit Dubey, Resident of Village: Koiriadih, P.O.: Pandeypura, P.S.: Patan, District: Palamau, presently working & posted as Assistant Teacher, Govt. Middle School, Rajwadih, P.O.: Rajwadih, P.S.: Medininagar, District: Palamau. 2. Mahesh Ram, Son of Late Bhuvneshwar Ram, Resident of Mohalla: Belwatikar, P.O. & P.S.: Daltonganj, District: Palamau, presently working as Assistant Teacher, Govt. Middle School, Talyakhas, P.O.: Talya, P.S.: Chainpur, District: Palamau. 3. Balwant Tiwari, Son of Bighneshwar Tiwari, Resident of Ranchi Road, Redma, P.O.: Redma, P.S.: Daltonganj, District: Palamau, presently working & posted as Assistant Teacher, Govt. Middle School, Hutar. P.O. & P.S.: Chainpur, District: Palamau. 4. Munni Tiwari, w/o Late Umesh Tiwari, R/o. village Redma, Ranchi Road, P.O. & P.S.-Redma, Dist.-Palamau. 5. Vinod Kumar Pandey, Son of Jay Ram Pandey, Resident of At & P.O.: Lalgarh, P.S.: Bishrampur, District: Palamau, presently working & posted as Assistant Teacher, Govt. Middle School, Lalgarh, P.O. & P.S.: Lalgarh, District: Palamau. 6. Ramesh Mahto, Son of Ganauri Mahto, Resident of Village: Jamuni, P.O.: Rajwadih, P.S.: Daltonganj, District: Palamau, presently working & posted as Assistant Teacher, Govt. Middle School, Rajwadih, P.O.: Rajwadih, P.S.: Daltonganj, District: Palamau. ....Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, through Secretary/Principal Secretary, School Education & Literacy Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, having its office at M.D.I. Building, near Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.: Dhurwa, Town & District: Ranchi. 2. The Director, Primary Education, School Education & Literacy Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, having its office at Primary Education Directorate, M.D.I. Building, near Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.: Dhurwa, Town & District: Ranchi. 3. The Deputy Commissioner -cum- Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee, Palamau, Having Office At. P.O. & P.S.: Daltonganj, District: Palamau. 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Palamau, having Office At, P.O. P.S.: Daltonganj, District: Palamau. 5. Chandrama Prasad Mehta, Son of not known to the petitioner, 2025:JHHC:33582 2 presently posted as Assistant Teacher, Govt. Middle School, Patan, P.O. & P.S.: Patan, District: Palamau. 6. Satyendra Tiwari, Son of not known to the petitioner, presently posted as Assistant Teacher, Govt. Middle School, Harinamar, Ρ.Ο. & P.S.: Daltonganj, District: Palamau. 7. Shiv Prasad Yadav, Son of not known to the petitioner, presently posted as Assistant Teacher, Govt. Middle School, Dhub, P.O. & P.S.: Panki, District: Palamau. 8. Vinod Kumar Pandey, Son of not known to the petitioner, presently posted as Assistant Teacher, Govt. Middle School, Babhandi, P.O. & P.S.: Hariharganj, District: Palamau. 9. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Son of not known to the petitioner, presently posted as Assistant Teacher, Govt. Sarvoday Middle School, Nawatoli, P.O. & P.S.: Daltonganj, District: Palamau. 10. Virendra Kumar Dwivedi, Son of not known to the petitioner, presently posted as Assistant Teacher, Govt. Girls' Middle School, Singrakhurd, Sadar, P.O. & P.S.: Daltonganj, District: Palamau. 11. Surendra Kumar Gupta, Son of not known to the petitioner, presently posted as Assistant Teacher, Govt. Middle School, Padma, P.O. & P.S.: Manatu, District: Palamau. 12. Mahendra Prasad, Son of not known to the petitioner, presently posted as Assistant Teacher, Govt. Middle School, Shahpur, P.O. & P.S.: Chainpur, District: Palamau. 13. Surendra Kumar Singh, Son of not known to the petitioner, presently posted as Assistant Teacher, Govt. Boys' Middle School, Hussainabad, P.O. & P.S.: Hussainabad, District: palamau. 14. Birendra Kumar, Son of not known to the petitioner, presently posted as Assistant Teacher, Govt. Middle School, Kadhvan, P.O. & P.S.: Bishrampur, District: Palamau. 15. Vijay Kumar Kashyap, Son of not known to the petitioner, presently posted as Assistant Teacher, Govt. Middle School, Darudih, P.O. & P.S.: Lesliganj, District: Palamau. 16. Nisha Gupta, Daughter of / Wife of not known to the petitioner, presently posted as Assistant Teacher, Govt. Middle School, Jod, P.O. & P.S.: Nagarpalika, District: Palamau. 17. Uma Shankar Chaturvedi, Son of not known to the petitioner, presently posted as Assistant Teacher, Govt. Middle School, Haidarnagar, P.O. & P.S.: Hussainabad, District: Palamau. 18. Awadhesh Kumar, Son of not known to the petitioner, presently posted as Assistant Teacher, Govt. Middle School, Lohra, P.O. & P.S.: Patan, District: Palamau. 19. Vijay Kumar Singh, Son of not known to the petitioner, 2025:JHHC:33582 3 presently posted as Assistant Teacher, Govt. Middle School, Nawadih, P.O. & P.S.: Hussainabad, District: Palamau. 20. Vidhya Sagar Sharma, Son of not known to the petitioner, presently posted as Assistant Teacher, Govt. Girls' Middle School, Chainpur, P.O. & P.S.: Chainpur, District: Palamau. 21. Arun Kumar Prajapati, Son of not known to the petitioner. presently posted as Assistant Teacher, Govt. Middle School, Kundari, P.O. & P.S.: Lesliganj, District: Palamau. 22. Dharmendra Kumar, Son of not known to the petitioner, presently posted as Assistant Teacher, Govt. Middle School, Tukbera, P.O. & P.S.: Bishrampur, District: Palamau. 23. Ajay Kumar Pandey, Son of not known to the petitioner, presently posted as Assistant Teacher, Govt. Middle School, Baralota, P.O. & P.S.: Medininagar, District: Palamau. 24. Rajiv Ranjan Mishra, Son of not known to the petitioner, presently posted as Assistant Teacher, Govt. Boys' Middle School, Lesliganj, P.O. & P.S.: Lesliganj, District: Palamau. 25. Kavilash Prasad Mehta, Son of not known to the petitioner, presently posted as Assistant Teacher, Govt. Girls' Middle School, Hariharganj, P.O. & P.S.: Lesliganj, District: Palamau. ....Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Amit Kr. Tiwari Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Vishnu Prabhakar Pathak, A.C. to S.C.-V --------- C.A.V. ON: 19.08.2025 PRONOUNCED ON: 07/11/2025 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioners praying therein for the following reliefs: i.) For issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing / setting aside Seniority List No. 4 Year 2010 – 15 (Annexure-6), prepared by the Office of the District Superintendent of Education, Palamau for promotion to the post of Middle School Headmaster (Grade-7), as prepared & published by Notice No. PR-140498, Palamau 2016 – 17, published in Daily newspaper "Hindustan" dated 11th April, 2016. ii.) For issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing / setting aside Office Order contained in Memo No. 6254 dated 28th December, 2016 (Annexure - 7), whereby & where under the juniors to the petitioners have been granted promotion to the post of Middle School Headmaster (Grade–7), as per the above Seniority List, which is arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court and in violation of Article 14 & 16 of 2025:JHHC:33582 4 the Constitution of India. iii.) For direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in the facts & circumstances stated herein, in the writ petition, from the date as & when the juniors has been granted Grade – IV & Grade – VII promotion, in the facts & circumstances of this case. iv.) For direction upon the respondents to pay all consequential monetary benefits to the petitioners upon granting such promotion. 3. Briefly stated, the Petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teachers in Elementary School in the year 1994 and were provided in-service training, the result of which was published in the year 2002. However, the Petitioners were not granted Grade-I scale from the date of their appointment. Thereafter, several writ petitions were preferred and it was held that Petitioners be granted Grade-I scale from the date of their appointment. Thereafter, the State Government came with a resolution No. 3027 dated 14.12.2015; whereby all persons who got training during the course of their employment were granted the scale of Grade-I from the date of their appointment and the inter se seniority was to be decided treating such teachers in Grade-I from the date of appointment. However, teachers who were similarly situated and junior to Petitioners, were given Grade – IV promotion after 8 years of service from 01.04.2003 and Grade – VII promotion has also been granted to the juniors of Petitioners w.e.f. 2010 and the Petitioners were granted promotion w.e.f. 01.04.2015. Being 2025:JHHC:33582 5 aggrieved, the Petitioners have preferred the present writ application. 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners had submitted that the Petitioners be granted retrospective promotion from the date of vacancy or when the juniors to the petitioners have been granted the said promotion. Ld. Counsel further draws attention of this Court towards Bihar taken over Elementary School Teacher Promotion Rule, 1993 and submits that Rule 5 (ii) clearly stipulates that the graduate trained teachers will be granted promotion directly from Grade-I to Grade-IV, if there is no teacher available in Grade-II and Grade-III and in this situation the minimum requirement is that the teacher must serve in Grade-I for 8 years. Further, Rule-6 deals with the availability of the vacancy. 5. Relying upon the aforesaid Rules, Ld. Counsel contended that the DSE Palamau vide letter no. 1268 has provided vacancies of Grade- IV and against the total sanctioned 61 posts of Science Graduate, 36 posts are vacant. Likewise, the vacancy of Headmaster is 140 in 2010 when the juniors were granted promotion and 72 UR posts are still vacant. As such, the grievance of these Petitioners may be redressed. 6. Learned Counsel for the Respondents submits that as per Rule 13 (1) of the Promotion Rule, 1993, untrained teacher shall not be eligible for promotion in any of the Grade I-VII and since the Petitioners have passed their Teachers Training 2025:JHHC:33582 6 Examination in 2002, they were found eligible for Grade-I in 2002; whereas the trained teachers appointed in 1994 were given promotion from the date of their eligibility. He further submits that after issuance of resolution No. 3027 dated 14.12.2015, the Petitioners have been granted Grade-I scale from their initial date of joining and Grade-II on completion of 12 years of service in Grade-I i.e., in the year 2006; as such, they are not entitled for promotion in Grade VII scale. 7. He lastly submits that the Petitioners have themselves admitted that the private respondents were trained at the time of their initial date of joining and in view of Rule 5(2) and Rule 6 of the Promotion Rules, 1993, they have been granted promotion in Higher Grades. 8. Having heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record and the averments made in the respective affidavits, it appears that the issue in the present case has already been decided in W.P. (S) No. 1107 of 2018. For brevity, the relevant paragraphs are quoted hereinbelow: “7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record and the averments made in the respective affidavits, it appears that all the petitioners have been appointed on 07.10.1994 and they gave their joining in the month of October 1994 itself and subsequently they were given promotion vide 01.04.2015. To decide the issue involved in this case, reference may be given to the “Bihar taken over Rules, 1993” which clearly stipulates in Rule 5 that the graduate trained teacher will be granted promotion directly from Grade-I to Grade-IV if there is no teachers available in Grade-II and Grade-III and in this situation the minimum requirements is that the teacher must serve in Grade-I for 8 years. Annexure-1 is a tabular chart which is admitted by the 2025:JHHC:33582 7 respondents which indicates the date of appointment and date of joining of all the petitioners. Further as per the Government policy, the petitioners were sent for training and they have successfully completed their training in the year 2002 and their results were published in the year 2003-04. At this stage, it is necessary to observe that the petitioners were though appointed in the year 1994, they were not provided training but it cannot be said that it was due to their fault and obviously sending them late for training is the fault of the State. However, ultimately the petitioners were sent for training in 2002 which they completed successfully and they were declared passed by the teachers’ training college. 8. Thus, if we go through the rules it stipulates two preconditions for promotion; (i) the eligible candidate having training must have completed 8 years’ service; (ii) there must be vacancy in the next higher posts. In the instant case, Annexure-6 has been enclosed which is a letter written pursuant to an RTI information which clearly gives the picture of vacancy available in the State, as such there cannot be any ground to consider the promotion of these petitioners from 2015 as they have completed their training in 2002-03 itself and were having more than 8 years of service. 9. It further transpires that the respondent-State has taken a ground that promotion cannot be given retrospectively. This argument of the State is not acceptable on the face of it, inasmuch as, the promotion order itself, which is of 2017, indicates that the promotion is with effect from 2015. Further, there is no reason, whatsoever, shown by the respondents, save and except, the circular of Finance Department which does not deal with the promotion rules and that what is the logic in giving promotion with effect from 2015 and not with effect from 2003. 10. At this stage it is also relevant to refer the decision of the Government which is Annexure-8 of the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner which is issued by Principal Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department under Memo No. 619 dated 26.08.2021; whereby a direction has been issued to the District Authorities that promotion shall be given retrospectively from the date of vacancy after amending the gradation list. It further transpires from the record that pursuant to the aforesaid office order of the Principal Secretary, a decision has been taken in the District of Ranchi and the promotion list has been rectified from the date of vacancy regarding other similarly situated person as the same transpires from Annexure 8/A of the supplementary affidavit. 11. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, this court is of the considered view that the petitioners case should be considered for fixing their seniority from the date of their appointment and their promotion should be considered from the date when they have successfully completed in teachers training and after completion of 8 years as stipulated in the rules, as such the respondent authorities are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioners and modify the date of promotion retrospectively from the date the petitioners were entitled as per the promotions rules. 12. Before parting, it is also necessary to indicate that the grievance of the petitioners is also for the post of headmaster; as such the respondent no.2 shall take that into consideration and pass a necessary order strictly in accordance with the rules. It goes without saying that the concerned respondent shall consider the case of the respective petitioners within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt / production of copy of this order. 13. With the aforesaid observation and the directions indicated herein above, the instant writ application stands allowed.” Emphasis Supplied 2025:JHHC:33582 8 9. Accordingly, the instant writ application, is hereby, disposed of on the same line what has been directed in the above referred judgment and the concerned Respondent is directed to reconsider the case of these Petitioners from the date as and when the juniors have been granted Grade-IV and Grade-VII promotions and pass necessary order strictly in accordance with law and applicable Rules and Regulations and also the above referred judgment. It goes without saying that the concerned Respondent shall consider the case of the respective petitioners within a period of 16 weeks from the date of receipt / production of copy of this order. 10. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands allowed. Pending I.A., if any, is also stands closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) NOVEMBER 7, 2025 vikas/- NAFR uploaded on 12.11.2025