IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4500 of 2010 1. DHANANJAY KUMAR S/O LATE MADAN MOHAN NATH R/O MOHALLA- C/O LATE MADAN BABOO, EAST INDIRA NAGAR, ROAD NO.-1, LOHIA NAGAR, P.S.- KADAMKUAN, DISTT.- PATNA 2. DHIRENDRA KUMAR SINGH S/O LATE VIDYANAND SINGH R/O VILL.- CHIHUT, P.S.- PARSA BAZAR, DISTT.- PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, STATE OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI 4. THE CHAIRMAN, STATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE SICHAI BHAWAN, BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE SPECIAL OFFICER-CUM-DEPUTY SECRETARY ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA 6. THE ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA 7. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 8. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSION, (PERSONNEL AND TRAINING DEPARTMENT), GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI ----------- 4/ 17/08/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, for the State of Bihar, for the State of Jharkhand as also for the private respondent Nos.9 to 17. On 20.10.2006 a provisional gradation list was published affecting the seniority of the petitioners. Clause-5 of the order stated that if any one had objections to the provisional gradation list, he must submit the same within 15 days failing which their objections shall not be taken into consideration and the - 2 - final gradation list shall be prepared. Specific statement has been made in paragraph-20 of the writ application enclosing as Annexure-11 that the petitioners filed their objections on 1.11.2006. It is reiterated in paragraph-21 that no action was taken on the objection. A counter affidavit has been filed affirmed by one Shri Raj Kumar Prasad Sinha, Under Secretary, Road Construction Department who states at paragraph-1 that he is fully acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case and at paragraph-4 that he had read the instant writ petition under reply and fully understood the same. The counter affidavit does not answer the writ petition parawise, but admits at paragraph-8 that objections were invited. The respondents do not deny that the petitioners had filed objections. There is no statement in the counter affidavit after having read the averments in the writ petition that the objections filed by the petitioners were considered and disposed off in accordance with law. The final gradation list has been published in this manner on 7.12.2006 which is now being assailed. Learned counsel for the State is unable to demonstrate from the counter affidavit or the several annexures to the same that in what manner the objections of the petitioners were considered and on what date and by what order it was disposed off. He sought to - 3 - persuade the Court that it would appear from the annexures that the representations had been considered. The representations were to be considered by the State Authorities. It was required to be disposed off. The question of judicial review would arise thereafter. In absence of any clear statement in the counter affidavit, much less in any of the several annexures that the objections of the petitioners had been considered and disposed off, this Court holds that the final gradation list dated 7.12.2006 cannot be said to have been prepared in accordance with law so long as the objections have not been disposed off. The final gradation list dated 7.12.2006 is accordingly set aside. The State respondents are directed to dispose off the objections of the petitioners filed on 1.11.2006 at Annexure-11 and then prepare the final gradation list afresh in accordance with law. The entire controversy with regard to allocation of cadres based on seniority therefore remains open till preparation of the final gradation list. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)