@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
J.N. Singh, J.@mdashThe 19 Petitioners of this case have challenged the memo No. 7 dated 2.1.2009 containing office order of the office of the District Superintendent of Education, Saran (Annexure-9), by which the office order containing memo No. 669 dated 30.6.2008, granting promotion to the Petitioners from Matric Trained Scale Teachers to Graduate Trained Science Teachers, has been stayed pursuant to a decision of the District Education Establishment Committee dated 26.9.2008.
2. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners submits that earlier the juniors of the Petitioners in the Science stream were promoted to Graduate Trained Scale. Aggrieved by the same Petitioners represented and their cases were also considered and a common gradation list was prepared and, finding the Petitioners senior enough in the list, they were granted Graduate Trained Scale of Science Teachers, vide Annexure-17, and Senior Graduate Trained Scale of Science Teachers, vide Annexure-18. It is submitted that these two orders were also passed by the District Education Establishment Committee. However, without any rhyme or reason the same has been stayed by the impugned order.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed in this case by the Respondents. In the counter affidavit some justification has been sought to be made for the issue of impugned order. It is also stated that the matter with regard to preparation of list of teachers of Matric Trained Scale, Intermediate Trained Scale as well as Graduate Trained Scale was Sub-judice before a Division Bench of this Court in which question for consideration was as to whether the gradation lists of teachers of Science stream and Arts stream in different grades have to be prepared separately or had to be a common gradation list for the purposes of promotion to the post of Headmaster. Therefore, by admitting the appeals, this Court, by order dated 17.1.1997, passed in LPA No. 985 of 1996 and other analogous appeals, had directed the Respondents to maintain status quo in respect of the gradation lists concerned.
4. Learned Counsel for the Respondents informs this Court that the LP As have been finally disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court and, by judgment reported in 2009 (3) PLR 384, this Court directed the Respondents to get separate gradation list of Arts stream and Science stream prepared up to the Graduate Trained Scale for the purposes of promotion to the post of Headmaster by amalgamating the same at that stage. He submits that this exercise has to be done now in all the districts of State which is in progress and, therefore, the final gradation list of science teachers of Saran District will also be reviewed and finalized again.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Full Bench judgment has not applicable in the case of the Petitioners as from before the gradation list of Science teachers had been prepared in Saran District separately and on the basis of such separate gradation list of Science teachers the Petitioners were granted promotion strictly on the basis of seniority. Hence, no fault could be found in the promotion of the Petitioners to the Graduate Trained Scale. He further submits that the juniors of the Petitioners in Science stream, who were promoted earlier, have not been touched by the Respondents and they have now been promoted to the post of Headmasters also and they are functioning as such. He submits that neither in Annexure-9 nor in the counter affidavit any specific reasons have been assigned by the Respondents for such stay of the promotion of the Petitioners.
6. The submissions of learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners is correct to a large extent, that the gradation list of Science teachers were already prepared separately from which the Petitioners were promoted which is in conformity with the judgment of the Full Bench. Hence there could be no reason for review of the same afresh unless and until the list itself was found defective. The counter affidavit does not disclose any serious error in the said gradation list. The submission of learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners is also correct that as the juniors of the Petitioners of Science stream have been promoted and are now functioning as Headmasters, Petitioners have reasons to raise a grievance. However, since the Full Bench has laid down for preparation of gradation lists of teachers of Science stream and Arts stream separately, just for the purposes of scrutiny and verification, the list from which the Petitioners were promoted is also required to be scrutinized and verified.
7. Therefore, this Court is unable to quash the Annexure-9 at this stage and direct the Respondents to treat the Petitioners promoted in the Graduate Trained Scale on the basis of Annexures-17 and 18 and pay them consequential benefits. But surely this Court considers it proper to direct them to make any verification, if they so desire, with regard to correctness of Annexures-17 and 18 within three months from today and, if they find that the Petitioners are correctly placed in the gradation list of Science teachers, to restore their promotion to Graduate Trained Scale granted by the said lists. The Respondents are also directed to verify and examine as to whether the juniors of the Petitioners from Science stream had been correctly promoted to Graduate Trained Scale and further promoted to the post of Headmaster earlier, or not. If they find that in the duly verified gradation list they are below the Petitioners, they will surely consider the cases of the Petitioners for grant of same relief to them from due date with all consequential benefits. This exercise must be completed by the Respondents within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
