Patna High Court
Ramayan Prasad vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 1 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.1581 of 2018
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1205 of 2015
======================================================
Ramayan Prasad S/o Gangadhar Prasad Yadav, R/o Village Jalalpur-1, P.O.
Rasulpur, P.S. Doriganj, District Saran.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar, through its Principal Secretary Cum Commissioner,
Department of Education, State of Bihar, Patna
2. The Director Primary Education, Education department, State of Bihar, New
Secretariat, Patna.
3. The Director Research and Training, Education Department, Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Magistrate, Saran.
5. The District Education Officer, Saran.
6. The District Programme Officer, Establishment Saran.
7. The Block development Officer, Sonpur, District saran.
8. The Block Education Officer, Sonpur, District- Saran.
9. Mr. Vijay Kumar Singh, S/o Dharikshan Singh, R/o Village Anjai, P.O.
Anjani, P.S. Parsa, District-Saran.
10. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Saran Division, Chapra.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Shashi Shekhar Tiwari, AC to AAG 13
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)
Date : 01-08-2022
Heard learned counsels for the parties.
2. In the instant appeal, appellant has questioned the
validity of the order dated 03.08.2018 passed in C.W.J.C. No.
1205 of 2015. The appellant in writ petition has prayed for the
following relief/reliefs:
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1581 of 2018 dt.01-08-2022
"I. To direct the respondent authority excluded the
name of the which candidates their name included in the
promotion list of the B.A. trained scale prepared by the
Respondent No. 5 on the basis of who obtained the one
year training during service period after enforcement of
NCTE Act and who has not fulfilled the criteria of
promotion on the post of B.A. Trained Teacher as per
concerned rule. As per NCTE Act one year teacher
training service is not valid teacher training.
II. To further direct to the respondent authority declared
the seniority on the basis of concerned Act by which an
untrained teacher may be given Grade 1 from the date of
which he becomes trained."
3. Prima facie the contention of the appellant is that he is a
trained teacher whereas 9th respondent is not a trained teacher. In
that event, having regard to various documents relating to
extending of pay scale and other things, the appellant should have
been placed over and above 9th respondent in the proposed
promotion list vide Annexure - 9 to the writ petition.
4. Perusal of the Annexure - 9 read with first prayer in the
writ petition, the appellant has not arrayed such of those persons
whose rights are likely to be affected in the event of allowing the
writ petition. He has impleaded only 9 th respondent. Annexure - 9
is only an administrative order. Such order is based on the final
seniority list of the feeder cadre namely Graduate Teachers. In the
Graduate Teachers final seniority list, 9th respondent has been
placed over and above the appellant. Further, it is noticed that the
appellant had cause of action on 05.09.1999, the date on which 9 th
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1581 of 2018 dt.01-08-2022
respondent has been extended certain benefits of pay scale
whereas similar benefits have been extended to the appellant in
the month of December, 1999. The appellant has not questioned
validity of the extending certain service benefits to the 9 th
respondent as on 01.10.2003 which has been given effect from
05.09.1999.
5. Moreover, as long as ranking assigned in the final
seniority list of the feeder cadre is not challenged by the appellant,
he is not entitled to challenge administrative decision relating to
proposed promotion list. Such a proposed promotional list is
based on the final gradation list or existing gradation list of
Graduate Teachers as on 25.11.2014 in which appellant has been
shown below the 9th respondent. In the light of these facts and
circumstances, appellant has not made out a case.
6. Accordingly, L.P.A. stands dismissed.
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
( Rajiv Roy, J)
GAURAV S./-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 05.08.2022
Transmission Date
