ORDER
R.K. Merathia, J.
1. Inspite of notice to respondents No. 5 to 8, they have not chosen to appear.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for respondents Nos. 1 to 4.
3. This petition is being disposed off at this stage with the consent of parties.
4. The petitioner prayed for a direction on the respondents, particularly the District Superintendent of Education, Chaibasa (respondent No. 4), to consider the petitioner's representation dated 31.8.1999 (Annexure-10), pending before him and to promote her to the post of Head Mistress and for other consequential reliefs. In the counter affidavit the respondents have annexed an office order contained in Memo No. 3561/Chaibasa dated 3.9.2001 passed by District Superintendent of Education, West Singhbum, Chaibasa, whereby he has rejected the said representation of the petitioner (Annexure-10).
5. The short facts of the purpose of disposal of this case are as follows :--
By the order dated 27th September, 1997 the claim of the petitioner regarding promotion to the post of Head Mistress was rejected by the Establishment Committee on the ground that the grant of B.A. Trained scale with retrospective date was illegal. By the said order dated 27th September, 1997 the excess payment made to the petitioner was also ordered to be recovered. The petitioner challenged the said order dated 27th September, 1997 by filing a writ petition, being CWJC No. 232 of 1998(R) in this Court. A similar order was passed against one Bhairab Jamuda, who also filed a writ petition, being CWJC No. 269/1998(R). Both the said writ petitions were heard and disposed off by a common order dated 3.8.1999. The operative portion of the said order reads as follows :--
'In the present case, persons junior to the petitioners were promoted without consideration of cases of petitioners. The petitioners were discriminated. For the said reason, the petitioners were granted promotion from retrospective date. In the aforesaid circumstances, the respondents cannot hold the same illegal on the basis of Rule 58 of Bihar Service Code, and/or Rule 74 of Bihar Financial Rules.
This apart from the plain reading of aforesaid rules, it will be evident that promotion from retrospective date can be granted but as on such promotion the financial liability involves, approval of the Finance Department is required to be obtained.
As by the impugned orders have been passed, merely giving reference of Rules aforesaid, without discussion of the situations, I hold the same illegal and set aside the impugned orders.'
6. The petitioner filed a representation before the respondent No. 4 with copies to other authorities. The said representation was rejected by respondent No. 4 by the aforesaid order dated 3.9.2001 (Annexure-C to the counter affidavit).
7. In the counter affidavit filed by the State, the facts, as existed when the said order dated 3.8.1999 was passed, are reiterated. In the said order dated 3.9.2001 (Annexure-C) also the respondent No. 4 has not taken into consideration the affect of the aforesaid order of this Court dated 3.8.1999. He has merely referred about the said CWJC No. 232 of 1998 but has passed order without considering the effect of the said order on the seniority of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit to show that the aforesaid impugned order dated 3.9.2001 has been passed on the basis of seniority list based on the Metric Trained pay scale or Intermediate Trained pay scale and not on the basis of date of appointment.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further pointed out that the persons junior to the petitioner were granted promotion in the year 1996 when, the promotion Rule of 1993 was applicable. Learned counsel for the petitioner further produced before me a copy of the order dated 28.11.2002 passed in WP (S) No. 5329 of 2001 (Bhairab Jamuda v. State of Jharkhand, 2003 (3) JCR 498 (Jhr)) filed by the said Bhairab Jamuda. He argued that the case of the petitioner and the said Bhairab Jamuda stands on same footing. In the said order of Bhairab Jamuda, this Court has directed respondent No. 4 to consider the case of Bhairab Jamuda for promotion to the post of Head Master from the date on which a person junior to him namely Mr. Jonko was promoted or to give the scale of the post of Head Master from that date and further that when the earliest vacancy on the post of Head Master accrues, he will be placed there.
9. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it is clear that the respondent No. 4 has not taken into consideration the effect of order dated 3.8.1999 passed in CWJC No. 232 of 1998(R). The petitioner may make a detailed representation afresh before the District Superintendent of Education, Chaibasa (respondent No. 4) bringing on record all the relevant matters, within a period of four weeks from today. If such representation is filed, the respondent No. 4 is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Head Master from the date on which persons junior to her were promoted vide Annexure-5, and if it cannot be done then in that circumstances, to consider regarding giving of scale the post of Head Master from that date.
10. It is stated that the petitioner has been working as acting Head Mistress since 1993. The respondent No. 4 shall consider and dispose off the said representation by a reasoned order, within two months from the date of receipt of the representation along with copy of this order, and communicate the order to the petitioner.
11. This writ petition shall stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.