Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J.—Heard the parties.

2. The petitioners have preferred this petition praying for granting them promotion in graduate trained pay scale as well in the scale of Headmaster from the date of entitlement along with the monetary benefits.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that before promulgation of Bihar Elementary Schools Teachers Promotion Rules, 2011, the Bihar Taken Over Elementary Schools Teachers Promotion Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as, “Promotion Rules of 1993”) were in force. A protracted litigation continued before this Court with regard to method and manner in which seniority list is to be prepared. Considering that there were different conflicting verdicts of Division Bench, the matter was referred to Larger Bench and the Full Bench of this Court vide its judgment dated 21.04.2009 held that the seniority list of science teachers and the arts teachers was to be prepared separately in accordance with the then existing Promotion Rules of 1993. It further held that the draft Rules of 2006 could not be acted upon for making promotions for earlier vacancies.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that directions were issued by the Full Bench to prepare the list and make promotions within three months. However, the respondents did not conduct said exercise and it resulted in denial of promotion to the petitioners. Learned counsel submits that the new promotion Rules 2011 were brought into force and the petitioners were awarded promotion under the 2012 Rules prospectively vide order dated 12.11.2012. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners were entitled to retrospective promotion from the date the vacancy occurred in terms of the Promotion Rules of 1993. Learned counsel submits that in another case, a Coordinate Bench of this Court has held that even those who have retired would be entitled for the benefit of promotion under the Promotion Rules of 1993.

5. Per contra learned counsel appearing for the State has taken this Court to the counter affidavit filed on their behalf and submits that after the direction issued by the Full Bench, dated 21.04.2009, the Director issued directives on 09.07.2009 and further made clarification vide order dated 04.01.2010 and as per the order passed by the Director, dated 04.01.2010, it was specifically directed that the promotion would be a one time promotion and there shall be no retrospective promotion as it was not to be granted from the retrospective date and accordingly the exercise was conducted under the new Rules of 2011 and promotion was granted to the petitioners.

6. I have considered the submissions noted above.

7. The Full Bench in Ramnath Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2009 (3) P.L.J.R., 384, considered the provisions of the Promotion Rules of 1993 with respect to referred question and held as under:—

“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