IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8511 of 1999 SHAMBHU SHARAN PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 6/ 12/8/2008. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. No one appears on behalf of respondent No.6 despite valid service of notice. The petitioner was granted Junior Selection Grade by an order dated 21.12.1984 bearing No.2656. This was cancelled by order dated 23.1.1999 in pursuance of the orders of an Establishment Committee dated 11.1.1999 that there were “defects” in the same. Simultaneously respondent No.6 was granted Junior Selection Grade with effect from 1.4.1981. It is noticed that the petitioner had also been granted Junior Selection Grade earlier since 1.4.1981. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that while the name of the petitioner stood at Serial No.1525 of the gradation list dated 17.8.1999, that of respondent No.6 stood at Serial No.1771. The petitioner was, therefore, senior to respondent No.6. That while the petitioner had been appointed on 16.3.1974, respondent No.6 had - 2 - been appointed on 21.7.1976. Learned counsel for the State sought to persuade this Court that the petitioner was appointed provisionally on 16.3.1974. This was a temporary appointment for a period of three months which was extended later when ultimately the petitioner was regularized by order dated 31.5.1977. That his seniority has to be counted from the date of his regularization and the earlier stop-gap arrangement could not be counted for the purpose of seniority. This Court notices that respondent No.6 was also appointed provisionally on 21.7.1976. He appears to have continued as such till his services were regularized on 31.3.1982. If the period of ad hoc services in case of the petitioner was not to be counted for purposes of seniority, and rightly so, the same reason would apply with regard to respondent No.6 also. The law has been settled that there can be no retrospective regularization. Regularization shall be effective from the date that the order is passed. In that view of the matter, if the petitioner is deemed to be an appointee of 31.5.1977, respondent No.6 is - 3 - deemed to be an appointee of 31.3.1982. The petitioner is therefore clearly senior to respondent No.6. The “defect” mentioned in the impugned order dated 23.1.1999 is confined to the aforesaid issue alone and no other issue of illegality has been pointed out by the counsel for the State. It has additionally been urged in paragraph-26 of the writ petition that this annulment of the Junior Selection Grade granted to the petitioner belatedly has been done in violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as no notice was issued to the petitioner, neither was he granted an opportunity to convince the authorities of the correctness of his orders of grant of Junior Selection Grade. The counter affidavit of the respondents does not answer this assertion. On the principles of non-traverse this Court holds that the petitioner has additionally been wronged in violation of the principles of natural justice. On both counts, the petitioner succeeds. The order of annulment dated 23.1.1999 is, therefore, set aside. The order dated - 4 - 21.12.1984 granting Junior Selection Grade to the petitioner from 1.4.1981 stands revived. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits. The writ application is allowed. KC ( Navin Sinha,J )