Anil Kumar Upadhyay JUDGMENT
Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
2. The petitioner has filed the present writ application for quashing the order contained in Memo No. 1023 dated 27.05.2010, whereby the claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that no promotion can be granted with retrospective effect. The Director while passing the order has lost sight of the hard fact that thrice the petitioner has to approach the court for the same relief and due to the reluctance of the respondents the matter of promotion of the petitioner was not considered and when contempt petition was filed after three rounds of litigation, the Director passed the order contained in Annexure 1 holding that promotion cannot be granted with retrospective effect, hence, the present writ application is the fourth round of litigation.
3. This writ petition was filed after service of two advance copies of the writ petition to the office of the Advocate General on 07.11.2012 but even after six long years no attempt has been made for filing counter affidavit.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the earlier round of litigation also respondents had not filed any counter affidavit. The present case is celebrated example of failure on the part of the respondents not only in deciding the claim of eligible teachers within time but at the same time it also manifest their approach towards the pending litigation. Even after six long years, if the respondents have not bothered to file counter affidavit, the Court is constrained to decide the present writ petition on the basis of the pleadings available on the record.
5. The petitioner was appointed in 1968 by the Managing Committee of the middle school in question. The school was taken over on 12.02.1981 and the services of the petitioner was taken over on 30.03.1986. The petitioner was directed to undergo training along with other teachers under the orders of the Deputy Director. The petitioner completed the training on 01.05.1988 and as such he became graduate trained teacher. It is true that for grant of graduate trained scale not only acquiring qualification of B.A trained is enough but availability of post is also required but the petitioner obtained qualification of training on 01.05.1988 which entitles him to consideration on account of date of entry in service on 01.03.1968. At the relevant time the respondents have granted graduate trained scale only on the basis of acquisition of training certificate and passing graduation. Since the petitioner has acquired qualification on 1.5.1988, he claims that he should be granted the trained scale from the date he acquired training certificate. His representation remained pending and as such he filed CWJC No. 6374 of 1990 which was disposed of on 16.9.1991 with a direction to the respondents to consider the grievance of the petitioner on filing fresh application before the District Education Establishment Committee (Annexure-3). The Respondents have considered the case of similarly circumstanced other teachers and granted the benefit of trained scale. Instances of such teachers were cited by the petitioner in paras 14 and 15 of the writ petition. However, no corrective measure was adopted with regard to the claim of the petitioner pursuant to the direction of this Court in CWJC No. 6374 of 1990. In the meanwhile, the District Supaul was created after bifurcation from Saharsa. The petitioner was constrained to file CWJC No. 11559 of 1995 for a direction to the respondents to grant him the graduate trained scale. CWJC No. 11559 of 1995 was disposed of on 6.3.1997 in second round of litigation and the direction issued by the Court could not fetch any result. The petitioner was compelled to file CWJC No. 1616 of 2004 for the same relief. Once again this Court has granted indulgence and directed to consider the case of the petitione........