Judgment 1. This application has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner praying that the order incorporated in Annexure 3 be quashed, as also praying that part of the order contained in Annexure 4 be quashed so far as the petitioner is concerned. As indicated later, the petitioner was an erstwhile member of the State Public Health Service. By Annexure 3, a notification dated the 30th December, 1969, opposite parties Nos. 2 to 21 were placed in certain posts, mentioned therein, carrying salary in the scale of Rs. 1250-1850. These opposite Parties were erstwhile members of the State Medical Service. By Annexure 4, dated the 30th December. 1969 the petitioner was posted as Special Officer. B. C. G. Scheme. Patna. Before this order of posting the petitioner was working as Chief Medical Officer. Hazaribagh Mines Board of Health. 2. The relevant facts may be stated as follows: In 1965 Government of Bihar had taken a decision to combine the State Medical Service and the State Public Health Service cadres into a single cadre, known as Bihar State Health Service Cadre, with effect from the 1st April, 1964. It is stated that in view of this decision, a combined gradation list of officers of the State Medical Service and State Public Health Service of the rank of Civil Surgeon and above and a combined gradation list of members of the State Health Service Junior Cadre of the rank of Civil Assistant Surgeon and District Medical Officers of Health Service were drawn up. Relevant extract from the latter list, as it stood on the 1st April, 1964, has been given as Annexure 1, dated the 6th March, 1968-It is stated that in that combined gradation list the petitioner had been ranked senior to opposite parties No. 2 to 21. Thereafter the names of the officers of the new State Health Service, it is said were sent to the Bihar Public Service Commission, for opinion regarding their suitability for promotion. According to the petitioner, the Public Service Commission had recommended his name as suitable for promotion to a four per cent. Selection Grade post carrying pay in the scale of Rs. 1250-1850. The Commission had also recommended the names of opposite parties Nos. 2 to 21 for promotion to the Selection Grade. According to the petitioner, the Public Service Commission had recommended his name as suitable for promotion to a four per cent. Selection Grade post carrying pay in the scale of Rs. 1250-1850. The Commission had also recommended the names of opposite parties Nos. 2 to 21 for promotion to the Selection Grade. The senior Selection Grade Posts were said to be 4 per cent, of the cadre strength minus teaching posts permanent and temporary. It is alleged by the petitioner that Government had been implementing the combined gradation list by promoting officers who belonged to the old State Medical Service and those of the old State Public Health Service upto serial No. 113. After serial No. 113 officers of the old State Health Service were being ignored although officers of the State Medical Service after serial No. 113 of the gradation list have been promoted. Thus, according to the petitioner, he has been discriminated against so far as promotion is concerned, although the gradation list (Annexure 1) is still in force. It is alleged by the petitioner that not only opposite parties Nos. 2 to 21 have superseded him, but that by the order incorporated in Annexure 4 the status of the petitioner has been downgraded to a post carrying a basic pay scale of Rs. 415-925/-. Mainly on these contentions Annexure 3 has been challenged and the petitioners posting, mentioned in Annexure 4, is also challenged. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State of Bihar the main paragraph of which is paragraph 7. In that paragraph it is stated that the State Government is reconsidering the principles of amalgamation of the Medical and Public Health cadres, which had been amalgamated into a single cadre in 1968. The reason for this reconsideration is said to be based on a letter sent by the Public Service Commission dated the 27th February, 1969, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure X to the counter-affidavit. According to the counter-affidavit, further, in the meantime, it has been decided that certain promotions should be given to the senior Selection Grade posts on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission and on the basis of the seniority fixed in 1968. According to the counter-affidavit, further, in the meantime, it has been decided that certain promotions should be given to the senior Selection Grade posts on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission and on the basis of the seniority fixed in 1968. It is mentioned also that it has been decided that officers of the Public Health Service cadre, who have not yet been promoted, will continue to draw basic pay in the substantive scale until the principles of amalgamation of these two cadres have been further examined and finally decided. It is further stated that if the Government takes any decision to continue the present seniority, the officers of Public Health Service cadre are most likely to get promotion with retrospective effect, i.e., from the dates from which their junior officers have been promoted. Substantially for these reasons, mentioned in the counter-affidavit, the orders incorporated in Annexure 3 and 4 are supported. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that there was no justification for passing the order incorporated in Annexure 3 of the writ application, the result of which has been that officers who were junior to the petitioner in the combined cadre have been promoted over the petitioners head, and the learned counsel has also challenged the order incorporated in Annexure 4 as detrimental to his client. In short, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that he has been discriminated against, for no valid reason at all. On the allegations mentioned in paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit, to which reference has been made above, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged, that, even on the grounds mentioned in that paragraph, the orders incorporated in Annexures 3 and 4 ought not to be upheld. Sri Katriar. appearing for the State of Bihar, the only opposite party who is represented by counsel in this court, has contended that the impugned orders are valid orders and he has supported his contentions on the allegations made in the counter-affidavit. Sri Katriar has specifically relied upon Annexure 10 to the counter-affidavit, where the Public Service Commission had mentioned as follows; "The Commission are of the view that the basis adopted by the Government for preparation of gradation list of the officers whose cases have been referred to in Government letter No. 3688 (2) H. dated the 26th June. 1968 is not equitable. 1968 is not equitable. In the case of officers in the senior scale posts in the combined gradation list, it appears the seniority was determined from the date of appointment in the cadre on substantive or continuous frication. But in case of officers in the Junior Scale posts in the combined gradation list, it appears seniority has been determined on the basis of the appointment on substantive basis. This has resulted in serious injustice to certain officers. A number of officers in the Public Health Service who were rejected by the Commission several times for appointment to the post of Civil Assistant Surgeons have been made to rank senior to others who were selected for the post of Civil Assistant Surgeons on these decisions. This is manifestly unjust." It is argued on the basis of Annexure 10 that the Government is reconsidering the question of seniority in the joint cadre in the line mentioned in paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit and that the interim arrangement should not be disturbed. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the materials on record, we are of the opinion that the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner are substantial and that even on the allegations made in paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit, it is clear that the petitioner has been discriminated against to his disadvantage. The opinion of the Public Service Commission incorporated in Annexure 10 must be read as a whole along with the two appendices attached thereto. In Paragraph 3 of the Public Service Commissions letter (Annexure 10). the Commission had stated as follows: "In view of the above, the Commission have separated officers of the State Medical Service and Public Health Service into two separate lists. The lists of officers found suitable for promotion to the select] on grade posts of the rank of the Civil Surgeons and S. E. M. O.s and other equivalent posts in either cadre is enclosed in two separate lists vide Appendices A and B. Appendix A contains the names of officers of the Public Health Service & Appendix B contains the names of Officers of the State Medical Service." Therefore, the Commission had itself made lists of officers found by it to be fit for promotion to the Selection Grade posts of Civil Surgeons and S. E. M. O.s and other equivalent posts. Appendix A was a list of Medical Officers of the Public Health Service in order of seniority in the respective caare found suitable for promotion and the petitioners name was third in the list of eight persons. Annexure B was a list of Civil Assistant Surgeons of the State Medical Service in order of seniority in the respective cadre found suitable for promotion. In the list in Appendix B opposite parties Nos. 2 to 21 were mentioned. Obviously, what has happened is that no person named in Appendix A has received any attention of the State Government for promotion, whereas cases of opposite par-ties Nos. 2 to 21 have been dealt with in the impugned Annexure 3 to their advantage. It is not enough for the State Government to take the stand which has been taken in the counter-affidavit, that, if the Government takes any decision to continue the present seniority, all the officers of the Public Health Service cadre will be promoted with retrospective effect. Moreover, as indicated above, the Governments stand taken in the counter-affidavit is that if a decision is taken to continue the present seniority of the officers of the Public Health Service cadre, they are "most likely to get promotion with retrospective effect". We have not been shown any material on record in support of the present stand which has been taken for upholding Annexure 3. There is no doubt at all that, for the present, the petitioner, and for the matter of that, all the eight officers of the Public Health Service named in Appendix A of Annexure 10 are at a disadvantage in comparison with opposite parties Nos. 2 to 21. To take one particular matter into consideration, the most to which the petitioner has been sent by Annexure 4 is said to be in the basic scale of pay of Rs. 415-925/-. As stated earlier, it appears from the writ petition that the post from which the petitioner has been sent had enjoyed the status equivalent to 4 per cent. Selection Grade post, and paragraph 16 of the writ petition has mentioned that by the present posting the status of the petitioner has been down-graded. 415-925/-. As stated earlier, it appears from the writ petition that the post from which the petitioner has been sent had enjoyed the status equivalent to 4 per cent. Selection Grade post, and paragraph 16 of the writ petition has mentioned that by the present posting the status of the petitioner has been down-graded. This matter is more or loss admitted in paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit, where it has been referred to thus: It has been said that the officers of the Public Health Service cadre, who have not yet been promoted, will continue to draw basic pay in the substantive scale till the principles of amalgamation of the two cadres are further examined and finally decided by the Government. Therefore, looking from all aspects of the matter, the irresistible conclusion is that the petitioner has suffered by the orders incorporated in Annexures 3 and 4. In our opinion, therefore, this court should pass an order which will give relief to the petitioner that he deserves and which may not, on the other hand, be to the detriment of opposite parties Nos. 2 to 21. We therefore, direct that the petitioner be put in a post in the four per cent. Selection Grade post in the scale of pay of Rs. 1250-1850/-. according to his seniority in the combined grade, posting him on the basis of his being a member of the erstwhile Public Health Service. That is to say, neither should the petitioner, nor should opposite parties Nos. 2 to 21 be treated differently so long as the Government has not finally reconsidered the matter of amalgamation of the two cadres. If any of the members of opposite parties Nos. 2 to 21 is adversely affected by this re-arrangement, it is expected that justice will also be done to them. The observation about reconsideration of the previous amalgamation by the State Government may not be interpreted to be a conclusion of this court that the State Government has power to do so, and this observation is made only on the footing of the proposal mentioned in paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit. The observation about reconsideration of the previous amalgamation by the State Government may not be interpreted to be a conclusion of this court that the State Government has power to do so, and this observation is made only on the footing of the proposal mentioned in paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit. We should also observe that although the other seven persons mentioned in Appendix A to Annexure X are not before this court, for the reasons given in this judgment, those persons ought not to be discriminated against also and this is a fit case in which Government should reconsider the posting and promotion of the other seven persons who had belonged to the old Public Health Service If nothing also stands against any of the other seven persons, mentioned in Appendix A to Annexure X. there is no reason why they should suffer, if they have suffered by the order incorporated in Annexure 3. Anywav. this matter is for the consideration of the State Government, and so far as the petitioner is concerned, the direction of this court is peremptory. 5. Sri Basudeva Prasad appearing for the petitioner has stated in court that even the basic salary of the petitioner has not been paid by the State Government since February, 1970. Sri Katriar is not in a position to verify this matter on the materials on record, and if it is a fact that the petitioner has not been paid his dues, as stated by Sri Basudeva Prasad, it is expected that the v/rong will be remedied at the earliest opportunity. 6. For these reasons, the writ application is allowed with the observations made herein, and in the circumstances, parties are directed to bear their own costs of this court.