RAMASHANKAR PATEL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ applications have been placed before this Full Bench to resolve the issues raised by the learned Single Judge in his order dated 20.03.2017 passed in C.W.J.C,. No. 11255 of 2016. In order to appreciate the reference, we think it just and proper to re-produce the order dated 20.03.2017 as under :

(2.) The petitioners in these cases were appointed as Assistant Teachers against Matric Trained Posts and were posted in different elementary schools in the District of Begusarai. They had obtained their certificate of Sahityaalankar from Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deohgar that was at the relevant time of their appointment taken as equivalent to a graduation degree. It appears that some disputes with regard to promotion of the elementary school teachers were under consideration in L.P.A. No. 985 of 1996 and its analogous cases which were ultimately disposed of on 21.04.2009 (Ramnath Prasad Singh Vs. The State of Bihar, 2009 3 PLJR 384 ) by Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court with a direction to fill all the vacancies in light of the observations made. The relevant paragraph no.8 and 9 of the judgment of Ramnath Prasad Singh (Supra) are quoted hereunder for a ready reference :

(3.) The State Government, thereafter, promulgated Bihar Elementary School Teachers Promotion Rule 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 201') and proceeded to prepare the seniority list of Matric Trained Teachers in the district in which the petitioners were posted. Name of these petitioners found place in their respective position and to this extent they had no grievance. The petitioners got aggrieved when they found that their names were not included in the final seniority list which was prepared for promotion to the B.A. (Trained) posts. Respondent no. 5 and 6 prepared a separate seniority list of the persons having degrees of Sahityaalankar obtained from Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deohgar and then without publication of the final seniority list the respondent no. 5 and 6 promoted persons who were junior to the petitioners. Name of these petitioners were not considered for promotion on the post of B.A. (Trained) posts. A statutory appeal said to have been preferred before respondent no. 4 remained pending.