Promotions cannot be annulled without an adverse order from prior litigation, reaffirming principles of legal continuity and procedural fairness.

JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying for quashing and setting aside the office order dated 22.03.2023 (Annexure-12) & 29.06.2016 (Annexure-10); whereby the promotion of the petitioners to Grade-4 has been cancelled and further the petitioners have also prayed for a direction upon the respondents not to revise the salary of the petitioners.

3. The brief facts of the case as delineated in the writ petition is that the erstwhile State of Bihar vide notification no. 28 framed the rules namely Bihar Elementary Teacher Promotion Rules , 1993 (hereinafter to be referred as Promotion Rules-1993) which was notified on 08.07.1993. Relevant rules for the purpose of adjudication of the present case are definition clause, Rule 5 (2), 5 (4), 6 & 7.

4. The petitioners were appointed to the post of Assistant Teachers. Prior to their appointment, they have completed their training and the results of the training were published immediately after their appointment. As per the Promotion Rules-1993, the petitioners have been granted the matric trained scale and after completion of 8 years of service, they were entitled to Grade IV. The exact dates of appointment and completion of training of the petitioners are given below:-

i. Petitioner No. 1 was appointed on 28.09.1994 and he completed his training on 19.04.1995.

ii. Petitioner No. 2 was appointed on 28.09.1994 and completed training on 19.04.1995.

iii. Petitioner No. 3 was appointed on 29.09.1994 and completed training on 19.04.1995.

iv. Petitioner No. 4 was appointed on 30.09.1994 and completed training on 19.04.1995.

v. Petitioner No. 5 was appointed on 01.10.1994 and completed training on 09.02.1995.

vi. Petitioner No. 6 was appointed on 28.09.1994 and completed training on 14.04.1995.

vii. Petitioner No. 7 was appointed on 30.09.1994 and completed training on 19.04.1995.

5. One writ petition with similar issue as that of the petitioners fell for consideration before this Court vide W.P. (S) No. 638/2006 (Arun Sinha & Ors. v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.). The issue before the Court was whether the scale of matric trained shall be granted from the date of appointment or from the date the incumbent passes the training examination; another issue was with regard to the inter-se seniority between the incumbents. The Writ Court disposed of the writ petition vide judgment dated 04.04.2008 with the observation as under:

“Considering the facts and circumstances, the pay of the petitioner of matric scale shall be given from the date of appointment, further the petitioner’s case should be considered for fixing their seniority from the date of their appointment.”

6. The State preferred an appeal being L.P.A. No. 214/2008 (The State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Arun Sinha & Ors.) against the order passed in W.P. (S) No. 638/2006 where upon hearing the said appeal, the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.11.2012 upheld the judgment of the Learned Single Judge. The observations of the Division Bench are as follows:

“Learned Single Judge has carefully considered all the issues involved in the petition and found that the petitioners were though appointed in the year 1993-94 but they were not provided training by the fault of the State only and even the training was provided only after passing of the order by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 05.9.1997. Even when the petitioners completed training in the year 1999, their result was not published and after intervention of the Court, that result was published in