IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4926 of 2011 DR.RAMANUJ SINGH , son of Sri Kamaldhari Singh, Incharge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Koilwar, Bhojpur at Ara Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Deputy Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Bhojpur at Ara. ----------- 02. 28.04.2011 This is a matter where mountain out of a molehill has been created by the petitioner and that too by not impleading the concerned private respondent as a party, obviously to beget an order from this Court without knowing the actual state of affairs existing on the ground. I.A. No.2947 of 2011 has been filed on behalf of one Dr. Neelam Kumari stating therein that the petitioner has filed the writ application without impleading her as a party. The issue is as to who shall be the Incharge Medical Officer of Primary Health Centre, Koilwar, in the district of Bhojpur, by virtue of their respective seniority. Petitioner claims that he is senior by virtue of the fact that he had joined the department on an earlier date which is 1.11.1990 whereas Dr. Neelam Kumari joined the Health Centre on 17.11.1990. The date of joining creates seniority and Dr. Neelam Kumari cannot be permitted to claim seniority and become Incharge of the Primary Health Centre. In the interlocutory application statement has been made in para 5 that in the seniority list published by the Health 2 Department dated 8.2.2008, the name of the intervener respondent stands at serial No.426(90) whereas petitioner’s name stands at serial No. 1154 (90). The figure 90, the Court supposes, relates to the year of appointment. The Court has perused the notification and it is evident that this seniority list has been notified after a protracted litigation and order or direction passed by this Court in CWJC No.12618 of 1999. So long this gradation list stands petitioner cannot claim seniority over the private respondent or the intervener namely, Dr. Neelam Kumari. I.A. No. 2947 of 2011 is allowed. So far as claim of the petitioner with regard to seniority is concerned, so long as annexure-1 stands and name of the petitioner continues to figure at serial No.1154, there cannot be any better claim for seniority merely because he joined the service a few days earlier than the intervener respondent. The law is well settled on this issue. It is the merit list or the gradation which decides seniority and not the date of joining. If the petitioner is not happy with the notification showing his seniority, the remedy for him would be to challenge the same and not claiming for officiating as Incharge on the post from the date of joining. The writ application is disposed of with above observation. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.) 3