IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1316 of 2005 ------ DINESH SHARMA, son of late Basudeo Sharma, resident of village and post-Painal, P.S. Bihta, District-Patna, at present posted as Personal Assistant to Secretary, Bihar State Housing Board, 6, Sardar Patel Marg, Patna-15 Respondent no.7 --- Appellant. Versus 1. DAMODAR PRASAD, son of Sri Sukhdeo Prasad, resident of village-Chatterbigha, P.S.-Bind, District- Nalanda at present residing at 17/589, L.I.C. Mohalla Hanuman Nagar, P.S.- Patrakar Nagar (Kankarbagh), District-Patna at present posted as Personal Assistant to Chief Engineer, the Bihar State Housing Board, Patna. .. Writ petitioner … Respondent 2. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Building Construction and Housing Department, Govt. of Bihar, Nirman Bhawan, Patna. 3. Deputy Secretary, Department of Building Construction and Housing Department, Govt. of Bihar, Nirman Bhawan, Patna. 4. Bihar State Housing Board through its Managing Director, 6 Sardar Patel Marg, Patna-15. 5. Managing Director, Bihar State Housing Board, 6, Sardar Patel Marg, Patna-15. 6. Secretary, Bihar State Housing Board, 6, Sardar Patel Marg, Patna- 15. 7. Superintending Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board, 6, Sardar Patel Marg, Patna-15. --Respondents- Respondents For the appellant : Mr. Rajendra Sharma, Advocate For the respondent no.1 : Mr. Ajay, Advocate For the respondent- : Mr. Rajiv Nayan Singh, Advocate Board ------ P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ------ Dated, the 23rd September, 2008 Mr. Rajendra Sharma, counsel for the appellant, prays for adjournment, as a last indulgence. - 2 - 2. We are unable to accede to the request of the counsel for the appellant. The prayer for adjournment is unreasonable which has already been noticed by us in our order dated 22nd September, 2008 yesterday. 3. On behalf of the appellant, repeated adjournments have been sought. We showed indulgence and adjourned the matter on 16th May, 2008, 23rd July, 2008, 21st August, 2008, 05th September, 2008 and 22nd September, 2008. In our order, yesterday, we made it clear that no further request for adjournment shall be entertained. Our order dated 22nd September, 2008 reads thus: “ The prayer for adjournment made by the counsel for the petitioner is wholly unreasonable as we find from the proceedings that several adjournments have been taken on behalf of the petitioner. 2. In the interest of justice, we keep the appeal tomorrow making it clear that no prayer for adjournment on any ground whatsoever shall be entertained. 3. Stand over for tomorrow i.e. (23rd September, 2008).” 4. We, accordingly, refuse to accede to the request of the appellant. 5. We asked the counsel for the appellant to argue the matter. He submitted that the single judge passed the order without hearing him. The contention is devoid of any substance as the impugned order shows that the present counsel appeared for the respondent no.7 before the single judge. His contention has been noticed in the impugned order which is as follows: “ Mr. Rajendra Sharma, appearing on behalf of respondent no.7 contends that he having been posted at the Headquarter of the Board, was rightly found senior to the petitioner and the impugned gradation list does not suffer from any error.” - 3 - 6. The single judge was not persuaded to accept the contention of the respondent no.7. As a matter of fact, the single judge has referred to the earlier writ petition being CWJC No. 6763/1990 which was filed by the present appellant, wherein issue of inter se seniority was involved. The single judge observed thus: “Having appreciated the rival submission, I do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Singh and Sharma. This Court in the earlier writ application in which the petitioner, respondent no.7 as also the Board were party, clearly held that Steno-typists employed by the Board, whether working at the Board’s Headquarter or in its other offices, belong to the same cadre and, therefore, could not be subjected to unequal treatment. Undisputedly, petitioner’s position is higher in the merit list prepared for appointment as Steno-typist. How the letter of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, which according to the answering respondents weighed to alter the seniority has any bearing for determination of inter se seniority has not been explained at all. I am of the opinion that the petitioner has been wrongly shown junior to respondent no.7 without any justification. Not only this, his seniority was altered without giving any notice or opportunity to him.” 7. The consideration of the matter by the single judge cannot be said to suffer from any legal flaw. 8. LPA is, accordingly, dismissed. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. Sunil