IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1017 of 2001 SHASHI RANJAN PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 4. 01.09.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The Court does not consider it necessary at this stage to issue notice to private Respondent no. 8 in view of the subsequent development and the nature of the order proposed to be passed. The petitioner and private Respondent no. 8 were appointed as Typist in the Industries Department in pursuance of an advertisement followed by a competitive examination in the erstwhile State of Bihar before re-organization. The last date for joining was 15.4.1987. The petitioner joined on 13.3.1987 and Respondent no. 8 joined on 20.3.1987. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that to the extent that respondent no. 8 was above him in the merit list, he makes no grievance of the same. However, in pursuance of the petitioner and Respondent no. 8 having passed the departmental examination, the petitioner came to be confirmed earlier in time than Respondent no. 8. Therefore, the petitioner was entitled to be promoted to the post of Head Typist from the date prior to Respondent no. 8. He is also, accordingly, entitled to be placed in the gradation list of Typist above Respondent no. 8. However, subsequently, in view of re-organization of the State of Bihar, presently both the petitioner and Respondent no. 8 have been tentatively allocated the State of Jharkhand and have joined there on 31.1.2001. Pending final allocation it remains a matter of speculation if they would both be - 2 - finally allocated the State of Bihar or one of them would be allocated the State of Bihar and other the State of Jharkhand. In the latter case the situation may be fundamentally altered in so far as the consideration of seniority is concerned. Relying upon Annexure-15 to the writ application, an instruction dated 28.4.1977 of the Department of Personnel, Government of Bihar, learned counsel submits that the ad hoc period of appointment prior to confirmation was not to be counted for seniority. In terms of the same, the petitioner having been confirmed earlier was required to be declared senior to Respondent no. 8. Since the issue of seniority has now become premature in view of the subsequent development, this Court considers it proper to dispose of this writ application with liberty to the petitioner that in the event that his grievance still survives and he files a representation in that regard in pursuance of the notification of the Department of Personnel dated 28.4.1977, the authorities shall be required to determine the inter se seniority between the petitioner and Respondent no. 8 in the grade of Typist in accordance with law after giving due opportunity both to the petitioner and Respondent no. 8. The writ application stands disposed. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)