IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5814 of 2006 1. RAMESHWAR RAM S/O LATE RAGHUBIR CHOUDHARY R/O RAM SAGAR, PS-BARAHARA, DISTT- BHOJPUR 2. AWADHESH SINGH S/O RAMANAND SINGH R/O MOAAP KALA, PS- TARARI, DISTT- BHOJPUR PRESENTLY POSTED AS CLERK DISTRICT PLANING OFFICE, ROHTAS 3. ABHAY PRASAD S/O SHIV SHANKER PRASAD R/O MOHALLA SONAR TOLI PS- SASARAM PRESENTLY POSTED AS CLERK, DISTRICT PLANING OFFICE, ROHTAS -------------PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECY. GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE SECY. REVENUE & LAND REFORMS DEPATT. GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE D.M.CUM-COLLECTOR,ROHTAS,SASARAM. 4. THE ADDL. COLLECTOR, INCHARGE ESTAB. SECTION ROHTAS,SASARAM 5. THE SENIOR DEPUTY COLLECTOR,ESTAB. SECTION ROHTAS, SASARAM-------------------------RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2 9.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner no.1 has already retired. To that extent the issue is confined to petitioner nos.2 and 3. When the writ application was filed the challenge was made to annexure-1 which is the final gradation list of clerks working in the Rohtas collectorate. The ground for challenging the final gradation list is that the persons from other department, namely, Consolidation have brought into service and merged in the cadre and a common gradation list was created which has affected the seniority of these petitioners. The Court has gone through the seniority list or the gradation list annexed with annexure-1. The name of petitioner no.3 figures at serial no.51 and petitioner no.2 at serial no.61 of gradation list. They are appointees of 1.12.1981 and 7.12.1981 respectively. None of the names who figured over and above of these petitioners have been shown to be appointed after the - 2 - petitioners. In fact, they have come into service many years ago and they have rightly been given their seniority in the common gradation list. Annexure-6 which has been annexed by the petitioners which is supposed to be the basis of seniority has no application to the present case because a separate circular had already been issued in this regard indicating the status of such employees who have in service in the collectorate originally and those who have brought into service from the department of Consolidation. In absence of any person shown to be junior to the petitioners having been shown over and above these petitioners, the gradation list does not require any interference. If the petitioners have other grievance when a proper time for making claim of the benefit of service arises they have remedy before the respondents or may be court of law. No interference with the gradation list is required to be made in view of the above stated position. This writ application is dismissed with the observation as above. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)