ORDER :

The matter has been heard through video conferencing. There is no complaint about any audio and visual connectivity.

I.A. No. 3794 of 2019

This interlocutory application has been filed for condoning the delay of 506 days in preferring the present appeal.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. Having regard to the averments made in the application and submission made on behalf of the parties, we are of the view that the appellants were prevented from sufficient cause in filing the appeal within the period of limitation. As such, the delay of 506 days in preferring the present appeal is hereby condoned.

4. I.A. No. 3794 of 2019 stands allowed.

L.P.A. No. 275 of 2019

5. The instant intra-court appeal has been filed under clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the order/judgment dated 09.10.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 5988 of 2007, whereby and whereunder the decision of the State-authorities dated 28.10.2003, as contained in Annexure 10 of the writ petition has been quashed, by which claim of the writ petitioner-respondent no. 1 for grant of B.A. Trained Scale and promotion to the post of Headmaster as his juniors have been granted has been rejected.

6. The brief facts of the case, which require to be enumerated herein for proper adjudication of the lis, reads hereunder as:

The writ petitioner-respondent no. 1 was initially appointed in the Matric trained scale on 01.01.1974. After joining his service, he passed the B.A. Examination in the year 1978 and thereafter he made a representation before the competent authority to grant him B.A. trained scale in terms of several circulars and guidelines issued by the State Government from time to time in this regard. Although the case of the writ petitioner-respondent no. 1 was placed before the District Establishment Committee but the writ petitioner-respondent no. 1 was provided only I.A. trained scale w.e.f. 15.04.1984, which would be evident from office order dated 06.12.1984. In the meantime, the writ petitioner-respondent no. 1 has also passed the M.A. examination in the year 1983.

The grievance of the writ petitioner-respondent no. 1 is that although he is entitled to get B.A. trained scale from 1978 i.e. right from the date of passing of the B.A. examination but the reasons best known to the respondents-authorities, the B.A. trained Scale was not provided to him rather he was granted I.A. trained scale along with several other junior persons, namely, Surendra Mahto and Kanu Kishore Mahto in spite of the fact that they have been appointed later than the writ petitioner-respondent no. 1 in the Matric trained scale and further the writ petitioner-respondent no. 1 has passed the B.A examination as also the M.A. examination prior to said Surendra Mahto and Kanu Kishore Mahto. Even then also, the said Surendra Mahto and Kanu Kishore Mahto, being junior to the writ petitioner-respondent no. 1 in all respect right from the date of their appointment till possession of the requisite qualification i.e. B.A. and M.A examination, said Surendra Mahto and Kanu Kishore Mahto, were granted B.A trained scale in the year 1987 but the writ petitioner-respondent no. 1 was not granted B.A. trained scale. Thereafter, vide order dated 18.03.1996, the said Surendra Mahto and Kanu Kishore Mahto, who were juniors to the writ petitioner-respondent no. 1, were granted promotion to the post of Headmaster.

Being aggrieved with the action of the respondents-State, the writ petitioner-respondent no. 1 submitted several representations but when no action was taken, he filed a writ petition, being C.W.J.C No. 3673 of 1997 (R), which was disposed of vide order dated 30.06.2003 with a direction to the writ petitioner-respondent no. 1 to file fresh representation before the concerned authority i.e. Director, Primary Education. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the writ petitioner-respondent no. 1 submitted a representation on 14.07.2003 before the respondent-Director, Primary Education, who