IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7043 of 2006 DR.JAY NARAYAN PRASAD,Son of Late Shivjee Prasad, Resident of village- Laukahi, Post Office Laukahi, Police Station- Laukahi, district- Madhubani. --------Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Commissioner- cum- Secretary, health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Joint Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, government of Bihar, Patna. 4.Bihar Public Service Commission, Bailey Road Patna. -----------Respondents 12. 20.04.2011 By this writ petition, Petitioner has challenged the purported final gradation list as published on 17.6.2005 by the State in the Department of Health and Family Welfare (part of Annexure 9) in so far as placement of petitioner is concerned. As counter affidavit have been filed, with consent of parties, the writ petition is disposed of at this stage itself. The short point for decision is whether the respondent- State is correct in taking the date of regularization order as the date of substantive appointment of petitioner for the purposes of determining seniority which was first time introduced in the final gradation list. In earlier provisional gradation list, petitioner’s seniority was counted on basis of date of his initial appointment/ joining on 12.11.1976. The facts are not in dispute. Pursuant to Government Notification No. 1767 (2) dated 12.11.1976, the State Government appointed the petitioner as Civil Assistant Surgeon and, consequently, petitioner joined pursuant to the aforesaid notification on 7.12.1976 as In-charge Medical Officer. State 2 states that this was purely ad-hoc appointment for regularization whereof at the request of State. The Bihar Public Service Commission issued advertisement No. 142/76. Petitioner was called for interview with his original testimonials as would appear from Annexure-4 dated 10.4.1977. As per the counter affidavit of the Bihar Public Service Commission, petitioner was finally selected and recommendations made to the State Government in the year 1977 itself. What State government did thereafter is anybody’s guess is nothing is forth coming from the State. On 4.5.1981 State Government regularizes the services of petitioner with effect from 1.4.1981 thereafter gradation lists are prepared and the list being on 14.7.2005 in which petitioner’s seniority is determined on his date of joining that is 6.12.1976. This is the position earlier as well as this gradation list was prepared and final gradation list appears. Directions in some cases were issued by this Court to state to finalize the gradation list of officers of the Bihar Health Services. Pursuant to the aforesaid present gradation list has been published, which is impugned in so far as it relates to the petitioner, here it is stated that all those doctors who were employed as temporary/ad-hoc basis in the year 1979 and had been regularized subsequently, their seniority is being determined from the date of regularization of their services. This is the part with which the petitioner is basically aggrieved. On behalf of the petitioner, Mr. K.N. Chobey, learned 3 senior counsel submits that undisputedly petitioner was first appointed and joined on 6.12.1976 for the purposes of regularization. B.P.S.C interviewed him and made its recommendation in 1977 itself. State slept over the matter till 1981. When it issued the notification of regularization with effect from 1.1.1981 but all along petitioner’s seniority was determined on basis of petitioner being in continuous officiation of the post since 6.12.1976. The final gradation list was published under some misapprehension, as if petitioner was appointed on the ad-hoc basis in 1979, which on the face of it is incorrect. In 1977 itself B.P.S.C has made its recommendation in respect of petitioner’s regularization. Thus, in my view, it is rightly submitted on behalf of the petitioner that on the principle of continuous officiation, the initial appointment in 1976 not being illegal or irregular nor it having been so contended by the State that petitioner’s appointment with effect from 6.12.1976 cannot be ignored for the fault of the State or for that matter the B.P.S.C . The period served by the petitioner cannot be truncated in fact the department itself understood the position up to 2005 in the same manner giving due recognition to petitioner’s service with effect from 6.12.1976. It is only later in the same year the policy is changed and the date of regularization of service is taken to be the starting point of petitioner scale. In my view, the initial appointment not being challenged is irregular or illegal cannot be ignored. Accordingly, I direct the State to revise the final gradation list giving due seniority to the petitioner with 4 effect from 6.12.1976 as his date of joining. The same shall be done by the respondent State within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of this order before the Principal Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of Bihar. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Namita ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)