IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14290 of 2007 Sheo Shankar Yadav, S/o late Narain Rai, at present posted as Head Teacher (Pradhan Shikshak), Primary School, Manpur, P.S. Hathauri Bochan, Dist. Muzaffarpur. ---------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Secretary, Human Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna. 4. District Superintendent of Education, Muzaffarpur. ---------- Respondents ----------- 2 23.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application, reading as follows:- “2(i) an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to consider the petitioner’s case relating to restoration of seniority with effect from an earlier date, within a time frame, be issued. (ii) Alternatively, an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to consider and dispose off the petitioner’s representations within a time frame and allow the benefits within a time frame, be issued.” as a matter of fact on account of superannuation of the petitioner with effect from 30.6.2009 has been definitely rendered infructuous. Mr. Yogendra Mishra, learned 2 counsel for the petitioner, would however submit that if the seniority of the petitioner is allowed, the petitioner would become entitled for higher payment of retirement benefit. In the considered opinion of this Court, the aforesaid submission also will be of no effect, inasmuch as, the seniority of a person in a cadre examination would give no benefit of extension of the qualifying service, and his date of appointment and seniority based thereon will still remain the same. The petitioner was admittedly appointed in the year 1987 and, therefore, when he has retired on 30.6.2009 with a qualifying service of twenty-two years and three months, no difference would be made even if his seniority position in the gradation list is changed. As a matter of fact, the petitioner in the garb of seniority really wants to shift back his date of appointment from 1987 to 1982, which is simply not permissible in law specially when the petitioner has already superannuated from service. The petitioner infact had acquiesced to his right if any, to claim retrospective appointment at the time 3 of his appointment in the year 1987 and joining the service thereafter and continued in service without any demur or protest. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)