Patna High Court
Brahamdeo Paswan & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 21 April, 2009
Bench: Kishore K. Mandal, Ravi Ranjan
Letters Patent Appeal No.985 of 1996
All these three Letters Patent Appeal are against the judgment of the
learned Single Judge dated 6.9.1996 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 10543 of 1995 and the
writ petitions are under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
--------
RAM NATH PRASAD SINGH---------------------------------------------Appellant
Versus
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS--------------------------------------------Respondents
LPA No.1137 of 1996
--------
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS------------------------------------------Appellants
Versus
1. CHANDRA BHUSHAN PD SINGH
2. JANAK PRASAD RAI
3. RAM NIHORA PRASAD SINGH
4. YOGENDRA PRASAD SINGH
5. RAM MILAN PRASAD SINGH
6. RAM AHLAD THAKUR
7. SHIVA CHANDRA PRASAD SINGH --------------------------------Respondents
LPA No.1138 of 1996
--------
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS------------------------------------------Appellants
Versus
1. SUDARSHAN
2. RAM NATH PRASAD SINGH ---------------------------------------Respondents
CWJC No.6778 of 1997
--------
1. BRAHAMDEO PASWAN
2. SARJUG PRASD SHARMA
3. KRISHNA DEO PRASAD SINGH
4. RAM BHAJJU MAHTHA
5. RAM DAYAL CHAUDHARY--------------------------------------- Petitioners
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS----------------------------------------Respondents
CWJC No. 12234 of 1996
--------
1. SRI BAIDYANATH SHARMA
2. JAYSHANKER PRASAD ‗ADIG'
3. MURLIDHAR SHARMA
4. RENUKA KUMARI
5. RAJESHWAR DWIVEDI
6. RAGHUNANDAN PRASAD
7. AVINAS KUMAR
2
8. SHYAM BIHARI SHARMA
9. RAM KEWAL SHARMA
10. GOBARDHAN PRSAD VERMA -----------------------------------Petitioners
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS----------------------------------------Respondents
CWJC No. 12535 of 1996
---------
1. DR.SHOBHA KANT JHA
2. SHAMBHU NATH TIWARY
3. JAWAHAR SHAH
4. PASPAT PRASAD
5. MD. MANIRUDDIN
6. HOSHILA PRASAD
7. MAJIBUL HAQUE
8. ABDUL KAIYUM
9. MD. ALAM -----------------------------------------Petitioners
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS----------------------------------------Respondents
CWJC No. 12607 of 1996
---------
1. PRATHMIK VIGYAN SHIKSHAK SANGH-
2. SD. AZIZUL HAQUE
3. SHEO PUJAN AJAYA
4. NAND KISHORE SHARMA
5. RAJENDRA PANDEY
6. KAMESHWAR PREASAD
7. KAMLESHJWAR PRASAD SINGH
8. SURESH SHARMA
9. SHIONATH SINGH
10. RAMANUJ SHARMA
11. RANJAN YADAV
12. RAM PRAVESH SINGH
13. BAGESHWARI SHARMA
14. VIDYA SAGAR SAO
15. NEMCHAND SINGH YADAV
16. LAL BIHARI ROY
17. MUSHTAQUE AHMAD
18. SHAKEEL AHMAD
19. HARI NARAYAN CHAUDHARY
20. RAM NATH PRASAD SINGH
21. MITHILESH SHARMA
22. SURESH PRASAD
23. RAJDEO SINGH
24. PRABHAWATI SINHA
25. BHUWANESHWAR SHARMA
26. SHEO DANI PRASAD SINGH
27. CHANDRAMA PRASAD SHARMA
28. VIRENDRA KUMAR
29. DAMODAR SHARMA
3
30. ARBIND KUMAR
31. ARBIND KUMAR SINGH
32. KALPANA KUMARI SINGH
33. GIRIDHARI SHARMA
34. SURYADAYAL VERMA
35. NAGESHWAR YADAV
36. RAMESH RAJAK ----------------------------------------------- Petitioners
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS----------------------------------------Respondents
CWJC No. 12708 of 1996
---------
1. SHRI RAM TIWARI
2. SHEO SHANKAR SINGH
3. JAY PRASAD SINGH
4. LALLAN OJHA
5. DINA NATH SAH
6. SHEO NARAYAN SINGH
7. BADRI PRASAD SAH
8. JAGYA NARAYAN YADAV
9. BAIJNATH CHOUDHARY
10. JANARDAN CHOUDHARY
11. LALIT KISHORE TIWARY
12. KASHI NATH PANDEY
13. GIRDHAR GOPAL
14. RABINDRA MOHAN
15. ZUMRATI ANSARI
16. RAJEEV RANJAN PRSAD
17. MAHANGU SINGH
18. SMT. MANJU SHREE MISHRA
19. SHEOPUJAN TIWARI
20. GORAKH NATH UPADHYAYA,
21. SHRI NARAYANJEE PRASAD
22. HIRA LAL SAH
23. RAM JAG PRASAD TIWARI
24. J. P. N. SINGH --------------------------------------------- Petitioners
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS----------------------------------------Respondents
CWJC No. 12733 of 1996
-------
1. RAM BILAS MISHRA
2. JAGANNATH TIWARI
3. LAKSHMAN PRASAD
4. RAMDEO RAI
5. SHEOJEE RAI
6. BABBAN PANDEY
7. KAMESHWAR SINGH
8. URMILA KUMARI
9. BABBAN SINGH
10. RAJ KUMARI SINGH
4
11. ATAL BIHARI RAI
12. LALAN CHAUBEY
13. SEHO DAYAL SINGH
14. DAYANIDHI SINGH
15. NEPAL SHARMA
16. RAM UDAR SINGH
17. KAMALA DUBEY
18. HARI CHARAN SINGH
19. OVERSEER PANDEY
20. GANESH PRASAD KESHARI
21. BHOLA SHANKAR BANDHU
22. TRILOKI NATH SINGH
23. SUDAMA SINGH
24. KAMAL SINGH
25. AKHILESHWAR PRASAD SINGH
26. BHRIGUNATH PRASAD YADAV
27. MD. HANEEF ANSARI
28. AWADHESH KUMAR SINGH
29. HARI SHANKAR UPADHYAY--------------------------------- Petitioners
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS---------------------------------------Respondents
CWJC No. 1283 of 1997
-------
1. SHRI MOSAFIR SINGH
2. SHRI NAND PRASAD SINGH
3. SHRI KRISHNA BIHARI SINGH
4. SHRI GOPAL KRISHNA SINHA
5. SHRI RAM PRAVESH SINGH
6. SHRI RAM LAL SINGH
7. SHRI JEET NARAYAN SINGH
8. SHRI RAJ KISHORE MISHRA
9. SHRI GIRISH NANDAN PANDEY
10. SHRI KRISHNA MURARI PRASAD
11. MOHAMMAD RAUSHAN
12. SHRI LAL MOHAR CHAUDHARY
13. RAM NARESH RAI ----------------------------------------- Petitioners
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS----------------------------------------Respondents
CWJC No. 4310 of 1996
-------
1. BRAJNANDAN SINGH
2. RAM KISHORE PRASAD SINGH
3. ZIAUL ISLAM
4. SHIV KUMAR MAHTO
5. KAPILDEO SHARMA
6. RAJENDRA PODDAR
7. SUSHILA SHARMA
8. BHOLA MAHTO
9. MOHAMMAD NASEEMUDDIN
10. HARISHCHANDRA MISHRA
5
11. HARISHCHANDRA MAHTO
12. RAM SAROBAR SINGH
13. SHANTI SINHA
14. PANCHANAN SINGH
15. SURBALA KUMARI
16. SUNITA KUMARI
17. SHIV NANDAN SINGH
18. BINDU KUMARI
19. CHANDRAKALA KUMARI
20. RAM KUMAR CHAUDHARY ----------------------------------------Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS--------------------------------------------Respondents
C.W.J.C. No. 12317 of 2006
--------
SURENDRA PRASAD SINGH--------------------------------------------Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS----------------------------------------Respondents
----------
For the appellants in L.P.A.
No. 985 of 1996 : M/S. D. K. Sinha, Sr. Advocate. Anil Kumar Singh
No. 1 and Abhinay Raj.
For the Intervenor Petitioner : Mr. Shashi Priya Pathak
For Respondent no. 8 : Mr. Bishnu Kant Dubey
For the State Respondents : Dr. Md. Raisul Haque, G.P. V
--------
For the appellants in
L.P.A. No. 1137 of 1996 : Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh, J.C. to G.P. V
For the Respondent : M/S. Dr. M. P. Shukla & Pankaj Kumar Pankaj
--------
For the Petitioner in
C.W.J.C. No. 6778 of 1997 : Mr. Rakesh Kumar
For the Respondents : Mr. S. S. Prasad Sinha, A.C. to G.P. IX
-------
For the Petitioner in
C.W.J.C. No. 12234 of 1996 : M/S. D. K. Sinha, Sr. Advocate,
Anil Kumar Singh & Abhinay Raj
For the Respondents : Mr. Nirmal Kumar (GP4)
------
For the Petitioners in
C.W.J.C. No. 12535 of 1996: M/S. Rajendra Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate &
Rajiv Kumar Singh.
For the Respondent : Dr. Md. Raisul Haque, G.P. V
--------
For the Petitioner in
C.W.J.C. No. 12607 of 1996: M/S. D. K. Sinha, Sr. Advocate,
Anil Kumar Singh & Abhinay Raj
For the Respondents : Mr. Nirmal Kumar, G.P. IV &
Mr. Bishnu Kant Dubey
-------
6
For the Petitioner in
C.W.J.C. No. 12708 of 1996 : M/S. V. Nath & Md. Waliur Rahman
For the State Respondents : Mr. Rajesh Kumar No. I, GP VIII
-------
For the Petitioners in
C.W.J.C. No. 12733 of 1996 : M/S. Banwari Sharma, Shiv Kumar Singh &
Rajesh Kumar
For the State Respondent : Mr. Dhananjay Kumar, J.C. to G.P. XII
--------
For the Petitioner in
C.W.J.C. No. 1283 of 1997 : Dr. S. N. Jha, Sr. Advocate & Mr. Anil Kumar
Upadhyay
For the Respondents : Mr. Rajesh kumar , G.P. VIII
---------
For the Petitioners in
C.W.J.C. No. 12317 of 2006 : M/S. Bankey Bihari Singh, Shailendra Prasad
Sanjay Kumar & Gobind Mohan Thakur
For the State Respondents :- Mr. A. Amanullah, S.C. XVII &
Mr. M. K. Pathak, J.C. to S.C. XVII
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE K. MANDAL THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. RAVI RANJAN
---------
J.B Koshy, C.J, In all these cases, the common question to be considered is, whether Science teachers and Arts teachers belonged to two different cadres in the elementary school or not. In Naresh Jha and others v. State of Bihar and others (1994(2) PLJR 348), a Division Bench of this Court held that there is no record to show that the cadres were created separately and, therefore, came to the conclusion that there is a joint cadre of science and arts teachers and ordered to prepare a joint gradation list.
2. When a group of writ petitions came up for consideration, the learned single Judge doubted the correctness of the judgment in Naresh Jha (supra) and, therefore, the matter was referred to a Division Bench. The operative portion of the reference order reads as follows:
7
―Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has drawn attention towards a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Naresh Jha and others vrs. State of Bihar and others (1994(2) P.L.J.R
348). In the said case, the Division Bench held that there is no record to show that the cadres were created separately and so came to a conclusion that there is a joint cadre of science and arts teacher and ordered to prepare a joint gradation list.
I have gone through the aforesaid judgment in the case of Naresh Jha (supra) and I doubt the correctness of the judgment. It appears that the letter No. 50 dated 20.2.1981 and other notifications of the State Government were not brought to the notice of this Court, by which the respondent-State created a separate unit for science and arts teachers.
Under Rule 12 of Bihar Service Code, cadre means the strength of the service or a part of service sanctioned as a separate unit. It is to be considered whether by the aforesaid notifications/letter while the State has sanctioned separate unit for science teachers and arts teachers, should be construed to be a creation of cadre in terms with Rule 12 of the Bihar Service Code or not. It appears that the aforesaid facts were not brought to the notice of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Naresh Jha (supra).‖ Some writ petitions were dismissed by the learned single Judge following Naresh Jha's case (supra) holding that common seniority list should be prepared for Arts and Science teachers. In Uma Kant Yahi and others v. State of Bihar (1995(2) PLJR 559, a Division Bench of this Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Arts teachers following the Bihar Taken Over Elementary School Teachers Promotion Rules 1993 and held that Arts teachers will get higher grade only when vacancies in the Arts cadre occur and seniority alone can be considered for promotion to the post of Headmaster and the teachers who are getting matric teachers scale cannot get promotion to the post of Headmaster and for that even if they possess the educational qualifications, their date of entry into the service alone will be taken into consideration for promotion to the post of Headmaster.
3. The State, considering the conflict in the decisions in Naresh Jha's case and in Uma Kant Yahi's case (supra), also filed LPA Nos.1136 and 1138 of 1996. The State also questioned the correctness of the direction for preparing only consolidated list for Science and Arts teachers together. When the matter came up before the Division Bench, cases were referred to the Full Bench. Since the question to be 8 decided is one and the same, all the connected cases were posted before us. In the LPA filed by the State, an order of status quo was ordered on 17.1.1997. Therefore, promotions, etc. were kept in abeyance awaiting the decision of the Full Bench. However, now it is submitted that in accordance with the directions of the Division Bench in Naresh Jha's case (supra), a consolidated seniority list was also prepared by the State Government and proposed amendment to the promotion rules 2006 and it was published subject to the approval of the Court as the matter is pending. The said provisional seniority list made in terms of the directions of the Division Bench in Naresh Jha's case was also challenged in CWJC No.1283/97 by filing supplementary affidavit. The learned Advocate General submitted that the rules were proposed to be amended and a common seniority list was prepared only because of the directions of the Division Bench in Naresh Jha's case (supra). The learned Advocate General also pointed out that such proposals were made only in view of the interim direction and no promotions were effected for the last 10 years and in many schools the posts of Headmaster are lying vacant creating administrative problems in running the schools and keeping the educational standards. It is also submitted that the Government is prepared to make seniority list and effect promotions, transfers, etc. on the basis of the judgment and the State is awaiting the judgment. It is further stated that the State is not siding or favouring either Arts or Science teachers and is keeping an open view. CWJC No.1237/2006 was filed by the Arts teachers for promotion on the basis of the principles laid down in Naresh Jha's case (supra) and that matter is also clubbed with this group of writ petitions. All the writ petitions were filed before the proposed amendment of the Rules and preparation of the new common seniority list made subject to the approval of this Court. It is also submitted that in the judgment in Naresh Jha's case, the correctness of the then existing 1993 Rules were not challenged or considered. But, in Uma Kant Yahi's case (supra), the above rules 9 were followed. In none of the writ petitions, the above rules were challenged as unconstitutional or ultra vires of the Act.
4. To understand how the Science teachers were categorized separately, we have to consider the short history of the same. We mention in this judgment mainly the annexures referred to in CWJC No. 1283/97 and LPA No.985/96. Before 1968, there was no separate quota/unit for appointment of teachers for teaching the Science subject in the schools. The teachers appointed had to teach all the subjects according to the requirement. The Government felt the need to appoint teachers to teach Science in the schools. Teachers qualified in that subject were found necessary. By Annexure - 1 dated 30.11.1968, the Government, for the first time, directed appointment of Science teachers in all the schools for teaching the Science subject. By Annexure - 2 dated 5.1.1973, the Government decided to appoint Science teachers separately creating the post of Science teacher and reserve 25% of the total strength of teachers to be appointed as Science teachers directly in I.Sc. grade. By letter dated 26.6.1973, the Government sanctioned certain posts fixing the stipend of Rs.150/- for Matriculate Science teachers and Rs.175/- for I. Sc. trained teachers, on the basis of a UNICEF programme. The Government, by Annexure - 4 dated 10.9.1973, fixed eligibility criteria for appointment as Science teachers. The said letter was modified on 15.9.1973 (Annexure - 5) to the extent that 25% Science teachers can be appointed and in the absence of the qualified candidates, persons who have passed matriculation or higher secondary with Science subject can be considered. By Annexure - 6 dated 18.9.1975, the Government sanctioned 2500 posts of I.Sc. trained and 7700 matric trained Science teachers and were allowed directly the scale of I.Sc. under the special employment scheme. Since teachers were necessary to teach the Science subject, it was stated that if reserved category candidates are not available, untrained reserved candidates shall be appointed and in case of non-availability, the same has to be de-reserved. Having felt that Science 10 teachers should be appointed to teach Science instead of Arts teachers, by letter dated 5.12.1979, the Government sanctioned 9000 posts of Primary teachers, out of which 2250 posts were sanctioned for inter-trained teachers reserving 50% for Science teachers, as could be seen from Annexure - 8. Again, by Annexure - 9 dated 20.2.1981, the Government sanctioned 2300 posts of Science teachers were sanctioned separately - 1150 I.Sc. trained teachers and 1150 graduate trained Science teachers. By Annexure - 10 notification dated 18.12.1984, the Government, by virtue of the powers conferred under Section 8 of the Bihar Non-Government Elementary School (Taking-Over of Control) Act, 1976published guidelines with regard to appointment and promotion of teachers in supersession of all previous rules and the teachers were divided into three grades viz.
1. Matric trained teachers
2. Inter trained teachers, and
3. Graduate trained teachers.
It is also provided that the Science teachers in Grade-3 shall be Headmasters in primary schools. By Annexure - 11 dated 30.9.1986, 6475 posts of teachers were sanctioned, out of which 1200 were kept apart for inter-trained teachers and 1200 for graduate trained teachers. It was specifically stated that 50% of the posts are reserved only for Science teachers. On 18.12.1986, 4075 posts of teachers were sanctioned, out of which 1200 posts were kept apart for inter-trained teachers and 1200 were for graduate trained teachers. There also 50% posts were reserved for Science teachers and the remaining posts were reserved for matric trained teachers.
5. Statutory rules viz. The Bihar Taken Over Elementary School Teachers Promotion Rules 1993 (in short, the Promotion Rules 1993), were also framed in exercise of the powers conferred by the provisions of Article 309 of the Constitution of India, by notification dated 9.1.1993 with retrospective effect from 1.1.1986, which would show that 50% of the total posts are reserved for inter-trained and 11 graduate trained Science teachers alone and that the Science teachers have got separate and independent identity. In Rule 2 of the Promotion Rules 1993, Grades 1 to 8 are defined as under:
―...........
(2) ‗Grade' means scale.
(3) ‗Grade-1' means Matric Trained Basic Scale-(1200-2040) (4) ‗Grade-2' means Matric Trained Senior Scale-(1400-2600) (5) ‗Grade-3' means Matric Trained Selection Grade-(1640-2900) (6) ‗Grade-4' means trained Arts Graduate Scale Rs.(1640-2900) or Trained Science Graduate Scale (1640-2900) (7) ‗Grade-5' means Trained graduate Senior Scale Rs. (2000-3500) (8) ‗Grade-6'means Trained graduate Selection Scale Rs. (2200-4000) (9) ‗Grade-7' means Middle School's Headmaster basic Scale Rs. (2000-3500).
(10) ‗Grade-8' means Middle School's Headmaster Senior Scale Rs.2200-4000) .........‖ For Grade 4, Arts Graduate Scale and trained Science Graduate Scales are separately shown. With regard to promotion, Rule 4 of the Promotion Rules 1993 states as follows:
―4. Conditions for promotion: - The promotion of a teacher may only be considered on fulfilling the following:
(1) He fulfills the minimum prescribed period of service for promotion;
(2) He possesses minimum prescribed educational qualification and training for promotion; (3) There must be a vacancy meant for the category to which he belongs S.C., S.T or general according to latest rules regarding reservation;
(4) He must be eligible for consideration for promotion on the basis of the seniority list against the available vacancies; (5) His service is satisfactory.‖ The minimum educational and training qualifications are mentioned in Rule 5.
Availability of posts is stated in Rule 6 and Rule 7 states how the draft seniority list for promotion is to be published. Rule 7 reads as follows:
―7. Draft of seniority list for promotion:- By the end of the month of January of each year, the draft of the following seniority list, based on the position that existed on 31st of December of the previous year, shall be prepared according to the standard laid down in rule-8 by District Superintendent of Education in the following manner:12
(1) Seniority list no.1 (which shall be for promotion to grade-3). In this list, firstly those trained graduate teachers who have completed minimum 12 years of service in grade-2, shall be placed; thereafter those matric trained teachers, who have completed minimum 18 years of service in grade-2 shall be placed;
(2) Seniority list no.2 (which shall be for promotion to Grade-4)--(i) This list shall be prepared separately for arts and science teachers. (ii) The teachers shall be placed in this list in the following order:
(a) Trained graduate working in Grade-3;
(b) Trained graduate working in Grade-2;
(c) Trained graduate working in Grade-1 and who have completed minimum 8 years of service in Grade-1.
(3) Seniority list no.3 (which shall be for promotion to Grade-6)--(i) This list shall not be prepared separately for arts and science teachers but for both a consolidated list shall be prepared;
(ii) In this list, firstly those trained Post-graduate teachers who have completed minimum 12 years of service in Grade-5 shall be placed. Thereafter those trained graduate teachers who have completed 18 years of service in Grade-5 shall be placed.
(4) Seniority list no.4 (which shall be for promotion to grade-7 and to grade-8)--
(i) This list shall not be prepared separately for Arts and Science teachers but for both a consolidated list shall be prepared.
(ii) In this list teachers shall be placed in the following order:
(a) Trained Post-graduate teachers working in Grade-6;
(b) Trained post-graduate teachers working in Grade-5;
(c) Post graduate trained teachers working in Grade-4 and who have completed minimum 5 years of service in Grade-4:
Provided graduate trained teachers of SC and ST category shall be placed after post graduate teachers if post-graduate teachers of these categories are not available upto 31st December 1994;
(iii) From this list teachers working in Grade-4 and Grade-5 may be promoted to Grade-7 and teachers working in Grade-6 may be promoted direct to Grade-8.‖ It clearly shows that seniority list No.2 has to be prepared separately for Arts and Science teachers for promotion to Grade 4, whereas for seniority list No.3, which is 13 for promotion to Grade 6, only a consolidated list shall be prepared. Seniority list No.4 which is for promotion to Grade 7 and 8, is also to be prepared on the basis of a combined list.
6. In CWJC Nos.3475/88, 6594/88 and 1239/91, a Division Bench of this Court by common judgment dated 8.4.1993 held that the notifications issued under Section 8 of the Act provide separate scale for Science teachers and not invalid as the State has jurisdiction to issue executive instructions under Article 162 of the Constitution of India. The writ petitions filed by the Arts teachers for parity with Science teachers irrespective of grade were dismissed. In the said case, the petitioners questioned the promotion of Science teachers as Headmasters as those Science teachers were working in higher grades at the time of promotion. It was further directed that in the vacancies of posts with higher grade available for Art teachers, promotions shall be effected immediately. Such instructions, in the absence of any rule, have also got the force of law. The above decision was upheld on merit by the Supreme Court while dismissing SLP (Civil) - CC 5618/96 on 28.10.1996. Anyway, the notification considered in the above case was replaced by the Promotion Rules 1993 and it made a clear distinction between Science teachers and Arts teachers and proposed that two separate seniority lists for Arts and Science teachers shall be prepared for promotion to Grade 4. A consolidated list has to be created for promotion in Grades 6 to 8.
7. In Naresh Jha's case (supra), it was held that there is no separate cadre created for Arts and Science teachers. Rule 12 of the Bihar Service Code defines that the cadre means the strength of the service or a part of service sanctioned as a separate unit. Therefore, even though promotion rules had been framed and it referred to separate seniority list, it was held that the classification between Arts and Science was not correct. Therefore, it was held that the classification between Arts and Science teachers, in the absence of creation of a separate cadre is arbitrary. It is 14 pertinent to note that the Bihar Taken over Elementary School Teachers Promotion Rules 1993 was not set aside. In fact, the said Rules were not even challenged. The learned single Judge, while referring the matter, noticed that as per Rule 12 of the Bihar Service Code, cadre means the strength of the service or a part of service sanctioned as a separate unit and, therefore, the view appears to be not correct. Rule 12 itself recognised part of service sanctioned as a separate unit as cadre. We have seen that while filling up the vacancies of Science teachers, the Arts teachers cannot be promoted. But to be promoted as Headmasters, seniority in the higher grade alone need be considered as both Arts and Science teachers working in Grade - 4 will get opportunity for promotion as Headmasters. Date of appointment at the entry level cannot be the criteria for promotion to the post of Headmaster. Teachers working in matric scale cannot over-take teachers working in graduate scale for the purpose of promotion as Headmasters. The earlier Government orders before framing the Rules were approved by this Court in the judgment dated 8.8.1997 in CWJC No. 3475 of 1988 and connected cases and approved by the apex Court. In fact, it can be seen that while sanctioning posts, separate scales were given for Arts and Science teachers. It was specifically mentioned that percentage should be maintained for matric trained teachers and graduate trained teachers. Therefore, it is a distinct part/unit of the cadre and there is nothing wrong in having a separate promotion list for Science teachers upto Grade 4. Teachers are required in the schools for teaching Science and they are appointed for that purpose. Both categories will get promotion upto the Grade 4 depending upon the vacancies allotted to the respective category. But after Grade 4, as mentioned in the promotion rule, there can only be a consolidated list. We are of the view that the Promotion Rules 1993 referred above is not unconstitutional. It was not held to be bad in Naresh Jha's case (supra) also. The above judgment is not challenged in any of the writ petitions. The Promotion Rules 1993 was accepted and acted upon in Uma Kant Yahi's case (supra). 15
8. The learned Advocate General pointed out that in view of the direction of the Division Bench, a consolidated list was prepared without any distinction between Arts and Science teachers and fresh rules were framed (but not implemented) only because of the directions of the Division Bench in Naresh Jha's case (supra) and due to urgency of the matter but subject to the orders of the Court in these cases. In view of the interim order, it has not been finalised. We are of the view that the direction of the Division Bench in Naresh Jha's case (supra), without setting aside the valid Promotion Rules 1993 was not correct. We overrule the same. It is for the Government to make separate lists of qualified teachers for both Science and Arts subjects as per the quota/unit fixed for promotion to Grade 4 and promotions can be made separately depending upon quota fixed for promotion among the Arts and Science teachers. But, after Grade 4, a common seniority list is to be prepared for promotion, so that both Arts and Science teachers could become Headmasters based on such common seniority list as prescribed in the Promotion Rules 1993.
9. In the light of the above, we are of the view that a fresh seniority list has to be prepared in accordance with the Promotion Rules 1993 and the joint seniority list prepared in accordance with the directions of the Division Bench in Naresh Jha's case (supra) and the draft Rules created in 2006 subject to the approval of this Court with regard to promotions cannot be acted upon. We direct the Government to prepare a fresh list and make consequential promotions and transfers according to law. No separate orders are necessary. In view of the interim order of status quo granted, promotions were not made for the last 10 years. In the above circumstances, we direct the Government to make separate seniority lists for promotion to Grade 4 for Arts and Science teachers afresh and thereafter to prepare a consolidated list for promotion as expeditiously as possible. The draft list should be published within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and 16 the final seniority list shall be thereafter published and promotions and transfers made in accordance with law.
10. All the writ petitions and the letters patent appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
(J. B. Koshy, CJ.) Kishore K. Mandal, J. I agree.
Sd/-
(Kishore K. Mandal, J.) Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J. I agree.
Sd/-
(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.) Patna High Court, The 21st April, 2009.
AMIN/ (A.F.R.)