J.B.Koshy, J.

1. 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 vs. 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:

"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 vs. 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 Jhas case (supra) holding that common seniority list should be prepared for Arts and Science teachers. In Uma Kant Yahi and Others Vs. 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 heid 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 Jhas case and in Uma Kant Yahis 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 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 Jhas 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 seniorit