IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12662 of 2009 Dr. Prashant Kumar Verma, son of late Sujoy Prakash Lall, resident of 85 Patliputra Colony, P.O. Patliputra Colony, P.S. Patliputra, District Patna. ---------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 3. The Additional Director, Department of Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 4. Deputy Secretary to the Government, Department of Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat. 5. Dr. Rahul Kumar, son of not known to the petitioner, at present Assistant Professor (Medicine), Nalanda Medical College and Hospital, Patna. ---------- Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Chittaranjan Sinha, Sr. Adv. Mr. Akashdeep, Adv. For the State :- Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi, AAG XIV Mr. Atul Kumar, AC to AAG XIV For the Respondent No.5 :- Mr. Banwari Sharma, Adv. Mr. Shiv Kumar, Adv. ----------- 18 5.5.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Though the bulk of this writ application is quite voluminous but, then, at the end of the day, the issue is very simple. The petitioner in this writ application and the respondent no.5 are trying to become Associate Professor as by turn of event in course of time both of them have become Assistant Professor. 2 The real rub in fact is with regard to their seniority with reference to the entry in the cadre of the Teachers of the Medical Colleges. It is not in doubt that earlier the State Government had notified the final gradation list of all the Teachers of Medicine Department of all the Medical Colleges on 8.7.2008 (Annexure-3) wherein, the criteria for fixation of seniority was the date of notification as Assistant Professor/Senior Resident. On the basis of the same, the petitioner was placed at serial no.36 by virtue of his becoming Assistant Professor vide notification dated 4.6.2005, whereas, the respondent no.5, namely, Dr. Rahul Kumar was placed at serial no.57 on the basis that his date of becoming Assistant Professor was 7.9.2006 as contained in Notification No. 696 dated 7.9.2006. It is this seniority which was however subsequently sought to be interfered with and revised by an order dated 21.4.2010, whereby and whereunder, the respondent no.5 was sought to be placed at serial no.34A of the aforementioned gradation list dated 8.7.2008 3 on the ground that he was holding the post of Resident Medical Officer in course of his persecuting post graduation studies in the B.R.D. Medical College, Gorakhpur. persecute Though, Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, had raised a number of issues for assailing the aforementioned order dated 21.4.2010, brought on record by filing of I.A. No. 5482 of 2010 but, then, what would really impress this Court for the present is the admitted clear violation of the principle of natural justice in revising the settled final gradation list which infact goes to the root of the matter. It is not in doubt that the respondent no.5 by virtue of being made senior to the petitioner by the impugned order had sought to adversely affect the vested right of the petitioner who was placed much above the Respondent no. 5 in the final gradation list and when such accrued vested right of seniority of the petitioner was sought to be taken away by the impugned order dated 21.4.2010, he and in fact all others, placed above the respondent no.5 in the final gradation list had a right of being given 4 notice and/or heard before passing of the impugned order contained in Annexure-11, the order dated 21.4.2010. Reference in this connection may be made to the judgment of this Court in the case of Ganesh Chandra Jha Vs. Steel Authority of India reported in 1992(1) PLJR 165 wherein it has been held that seniority is a civil right and if by any reason seniority of a person is affected he is entitled to a notice. Admittedly, such notice was not given to the petitioner and therefore, this Court will have no option but, to hold that the order dated 21.4.2010, being in violation of principle of natural justice, cannot be sustained and must be quashed on this ground alone. It is ordered accordingly. As noted above, the concept of whole seniority between the petitioner and the respondent no.5 is for the purposes of earning the next higher post of Associate Professor. Therefore, once this Court has quashed the order dated 21.4.2010 revising the seniority of the respondent no.5 only on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice, it would be necessary to 5 remit this matter back to the Principal Secretary, Health to decide the seniority matter between the petitioner and the respondent no.5 afresh after affording opportunity of personal hearing to both the petitioner and the respondent no.5. Such an exercise, however, must be completed and the seniority of the petitioner vis-à-vis respondent no.5 must be decided by a speaking order within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It goes without saying that this Court has expressed no opinion on the merit of the case of the petitioner or the respondent no.5. It is also made clear that any interim order passed in this case earlier shall also stand vacated. With the aforementioned observations and direction, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)