VIKRAMADITYA PRASAD, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has filed this writ application for a direction upon the respondent No. 4 for giving due promotion to the petitioner to the post of Head Master accruing prior to 31.12.1995 as the juniors were promoted ignoring the petitioners claim.
(2.) THE aforesaid demand of the petitioner arose out of the fact that according to the petitioner, he was at Sl. No. 14 of the Gradation List whereas one Jonko was at Sl. No. 16. The petitioner was not granted initially the B.Sc. trained scale. Subsequently, he had moved High Court because the claim of the petitioner to that scale was denied by the District Education Establishment Committee by Annexure -6. The claim of the petitioner is as follows : - - "Unka Daba Hai Ki Unka Nam Boriyata Suchi Me 14 Number Par Hai. Thatha Shri Jonko Ka 16 Number Par Hal Shri Jonko Unse Niyukti, Yogotha I.Sc. Prothistha Betanman Prapti Me Kaniya Hai. Phirbi Unhe 12.3.1987 Se B.Sc. Prothistha Ka Bethanman Abang 18.3.1996 Ke Adesh Duara Pro. Aa. Pad Par Pronati Vi De Di Gayi Hai Istara Ab -hyyavedak Ke Sat Antar Kiya Gaya Hal" The ground on which the claim of the petitioner was rejected was as follows : - - "Abhyyavedak Ka B.Sc. Prothistha Betanman Bhutlakhi Probhay Se Diye Jane Ke Kar Samithi Me Inhe B.Sc. Prothistha Ka Diya Gaye Betanman Niyam Birudh Hone Ke Karan Pro. Aa. Pad Ke Liya Banayeni Gayi Boriyata Suchi Se Inka Nam Hatane Ka Nirnay Liya." Against that the petitioner had moved the High Court. That order had been set aside by this Court, vide Annexure -1/1 in CWJC Nos. 232/98(R) and 269/98(R), which were heard together. Consequently, the petitioner was given the B.Sc. trained scale with effect from 1.4.1987, that was actually in exercise of the restoration and a direction was made to refund that amount, if recovered from the petitioner. Thus this matter has been set right with effect from 1.4.1987. From this, it is clear that some wrong had been done with the petitioner and he was wrongly denied the scale of B.Sc. trained scale from earlier date, at least from 1.4.1987, though the claim of the petitioner was that he should have been given this scale with effect from 12.3.1987, when his junior whose name appeared in the Gradation List at Sl. No. 16. I am not inclined to enter into this matter, because in the earlier writ application, this matter has been discussed and disposed off, but one thing which attracts the attention is that even in that impugned order, the clause of the petitioner was that he was at Sl. No. 14 whereas Mr. Jonko was at Sl. No. 16 of the Gradation List. The claim of the petitioner was neither denied, nor accepted in the impugned order. When the claim was neither denied, nor accepted in the impugned order and from the circumstances it is clear that the petitioners grievance that he was wrongfully denied the retrospective promotion, was set right by the High Court, then the only interpretation will be this Gradation List, which existed prior to 1.4.1987, has remained undisturbed.
(3.) IN paragraph No. 4 of the counter -affidavit filed by the respondent No. 4, averment has been made that since Sri Jonko was drawing B.Sc. trained scale with effect from 12.3.1987 and the petitioner was drawing that scale with effect from 1.4.1987, Shri Jonko is senior to the petitioner. It has been further averred that the school where the petitioner was posted falls in the newly created district of Khar -sawan -Saraikela and now a seniority list is to be prepared for the district of Khar -sawarn and only then the promotion of the teachers would be taken into consideration.;