IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.272 of 1997 1. UDAY SHANKAR MADHUKAR son of Sri Mahendar Thakur, resident of village- Nawada, P.O Jaintpur, Police Station Sarainya, District- Muzaffarpur. 2. Suresh Prasad Singh son of Sri Kishori Sharan Singh, resident of village and P O Poawan, Police Station Masaurhi, District- Patna. … Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, through the Chief Secretary, government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Joint Secretary, Incharge Joint Cadre Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Govt. of Bihar Patna. 4. Sri B. K. Srivastava (retired Additional Secretary) Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 5. Gokul Prasad Singh son of Ramchandar Prasad Singh. 6. Ugra Mohan Prasad son of Late Sateynarayan Prasad. 7. Murlidhar Mandal son of Late Lalji Mandal. 8. Lala Om Prakash son of late Sarda Kumar Tunior. 9. Chandeshwar Prasad Singh son of late Mahender Singh 10. Baleshwar Prasad son of Fauzdari Yadav. All are Assistants, in the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. … Respondents. ----------- 12. 11.05.2011 No one appears for the petitioner. Counsel for the respondents are present. Mr. Shailendra Kr. Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents would draw attention of this Court towards a judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gokul Pd. Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 1999(2) PLJR 216 wherein it was held as follows;- “38. In the result, I hold :- 2 (a) The Joint Cadre Rules, 1992 which lays down a new principle for the determination of inter se seniority of Assistant cannot be applied retrospectively so as to deprive the Assistants of their vested and accrued rights relating to seniority which had crystallized under Resolution No. 257 dated March 30, 1981. (b) The seniority of the Assistants recruited from other sources vis-à-vis those appointed on the basis of general competitive tests must be determined by applying the principles laid down in the Government Circular dated 30th March, 1981, the constitutional validity of which has been upheld by this Court and affirmed by the Supreme Court by dismissal of the Special Leave Petition. (c) Rule 14(2) (Gha) cannot be applied retrospectively so as to divest the petitioners of their accrued and vested rights, but it is not necessary for us in this batch of writ petitions to express any opinion on the validity of this rule, if applied prospectively. (d) Those appointed earlier on temporary/ ad hoc basis like the petitioners, but subsequently appointed on the basis of result of competitive examinations, shall be entitled to reckon their seniority on the basis of their earlier appointment, if that be beneficial to them, applying the principle as enumerated in Resolution dated 30.3.1981. (e) The petitioners in CWJC No. 5318 of 1994 shall also be entitled to the same treatment as the petitioners in the other two writ petitions, treating them as candidates appointed from other sources and applying to their cases the principles enshrined in 3 Government resolution No. 257 dated 30th March, 1981. (f) The final gradation list notified on 3.8.1992 is therefore quashed and the respondents are directed to prepare a final gradation list afresh in the light of this judgment.” Mr. Sinha has also drawn attention of this Court to the specific finding recorded as with regard to the private respondents to this writ application inasmuch as their case was also considered in paragraph 37 reading as follows:- “37. One other aspect of the matter however deserves consideration. The respondents in CWJC No. 10944 of 1992 have asserted that some of them were also appointed earlier on ad hoc temporary basis, but they subsequently took the competitive examinations held in 1971 and 1973 and were selected for appointment on the basis of the result of such examinations. Their seniority cannot be adversely affected by reason of their having competed at the general competitive examination. The submission is fair, and must be accepted. Those respondents and others who were earlier appointed in the same manner as the petitioners, but later appeared at the competitive tests and were regularly appointed, must be given the benefit of seniority as has been given to the petitioners on the basis of their earlier appointment, if that be beneficial to them.” 4 Thus, it becomes clear that after filing of this writ application, the issue had been settled in favour of respondents and therefore their earlier promotion as senior selection grade assistant in the joint cadre cannot be declared to be bad. Consequently, the earlier provisional promotion given to the petitioners which was stayed by the respondents on account of their disputed seniority can also not be held to be bad in any respect. Be that as it may, now as the issue of seniority in the joint cadre of assistant has to be gone into in view of the revised seniority list as directed by the Apex Court, the rights of the parties including that of the petitioners and private respondents of this case with regard to their promotion on the post of senior selection grade assistant or any further promotion shall now squarely dependent on the subsequent event which has taken place after filing of this writ application. As a matter of fact, this writ application has become infructuous and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. kanchan ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) 5