The central legal point established in the judgment is the application and interpretation of the Bihar Taken Over Elementary School Teachers Promotion Rules, 1993, specifically Rule 7(2), which mandates separate seniority lists for Arts and Science teachers, influencing the court's decision in upholding the separate categorization and entitlement of the petitioners to inclusion in the seniority list for Arts teachers.

JUDGMENT :

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

2. Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents along with Mr. Rakesh Kumar Roy, Advocate.

3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

(a) For a direction commanding upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for promotion to graduate trained scale (5500-175-9000) inasmuch as a number of similarly situated persons have been promoted by Office Order contained in memo no. 1081 dated 03/05/2010 issued by the respondents 4 and 5 and then promote the petitioners to such scale w.e.f. the date the others have been promoted by this Office Order dated 03/05/2010.

(b) To hold and declare that the seniority list which is said to be finally approved by the Regional Deputy Director of Education (RDDE), South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi by letter no. 679 dated 19/05/2009 is wholly arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and contrary to law to the extent it discriminates among so called Science and Arts teachers inasmuch as all the petitioner were appointed as Assistant Teachers (not as Science or Arts teachers) in pursuance of the merit list prepared by Bihar Public Service Commission (For short “BPSC”) and the recommendation made by it to the State Government for appointment in one or the other districts of existing State of Bihar and therefore, the petitioners cannot be discriminated on the basis of Science or Arts teachers, particularly when neither in the advertisement for such appointment nor in the appointment letters of the petitioners of any appointees it was ever mentioned that they are appointed as Science or Arts teachers.

(c) To hold and declare that the action of the respondents in not promoting the petitioners at one hand and promoting others similarly situated persons on the other hand on the ground that the petitioners are not Science graduates, is wholly, arbitrary, illegal and the same is colourable exercise of power by the respondents.

(d) To direct the respondents to produce the data before this Hon'ble Court as to how many vacancies of Science Teachers were there in the district of Gumla for which advertisement dated 09/10/1991 was issued by the State of Jharkhand in respect of Gumla district and how many teachers out of that were appointed as Science Teachers in pursuance of the said advertisement dated 09/10/1991 published under the signature of Sri Phool Singh, the Director (Primary Education), Bihar, Human Resource Development Department, Patna.

(e) For any other appropriate relief/reliefs to which the petitioner is found to be entitled in the facts and circumstances of this case.”

Arguments of the Petitioners

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are primarily aggrieved by office order contained in Memo No. 1081 dated 03.05.2010 issued by respondent nos.4 and 5, in as much as, similarly situated persons have been promoted by the said office order, but the petitioners have been left out. She submits that the order of promotion relates only to Science Teachers and the petitioners being from Arts background have been left out.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per the advertisement issued on 09.10.1991, the petitioners as well as persons mentioned in the aforesaid Memo No. 1081 dated 03.05.2010 were appointed as Assistant Teachers not as Science or Arts Teachers pursuant to merit list and recommendation made by BPSC to the State government for appointment of teachers in one or the other districts of the then existing State of Bihar. The grievance of the petitioners is that the petitioners cannot be discriminated on the basis of Science or Arts Teachers.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as per Annexure-8 dated 28.04.2010, different seniority list was to be prepared for Arts and Science Teachers for promotion to Grade IV under the provision of 1993 Rules and speci