Judgment S.K. Choudhuri, J. : These two writ applications are filed for quashing the same order/notification dated the 20th of March, 1972, by which the Respondent Sri Chandranan Thakur is promoted to the post of Professor of Humanity under the State of Bihar through the Secretary to the Government, Department of Industries and Technical Education (Respondent no. 1) and as such they have been heard together. It may be stated here that the impugned order notification has been made Annexure 1' in C.W.J.C. No.752/72, whereas the same has been made Annexure 13' in C.W.J.C. No. 539/72. 2. The petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 752 of 1972 was appointed temporarily as Assistant Professor of English at the Bihar Institute of Technology (in short B.I.T.) at Sindri by respondent no. 1 by a notification dated the 1st October, 1958. At that time the post was a temporary one. A copy of the aforesaid notification dated the 1st October, 1958 has been made Annexure 2' to the Writ application. This temporary post was sanctioned on permanent basis by the State of Bihar (Respondent no. 1) with effect from the 10th October, 1961. The order sanctioning the post as permanent post is made Annexure 3' to the writ application. By a notification dated the 20th February, 1965, the petitioner was then appointed on probation to the aforesaid permanent post with effect from the 10th October, 1961 and by the same notification he was confirmed on the expiry of the probationary period of one year, namely, from the 10th October, 1962. A copy of the notification is marked Annexure 4'. The petitioner has averred that the post of Assistant Professor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Humanities was created on permanent basis by the Government order dated the 12th March, 1958. Sri Chandranan Thakur (Respondent no. 2) was appointed initially on probation for one year in that post by notification dated the 29th of January, 1960 (Annexure ')') and he was confirmed in the said post with effect from the 15th February, 1961 by a notification dated the 12th April, 1961. 3. The State (Respondent no. 1) decided to integrate various categories of posts in the Engineering Colleges and Engineering Schools in the State of Bihar by Government order dated the 11th July, 1960 ( Annexure 6' ). 3. The State (Respondent no. 1) decided to integrate various categories of posts in the Engineering Colleges and Engineering Schools in the State of Bihar by Government order dated the 11th July, 1960 ( Annexure 6' ). Under clause (E) of the said Government order the post of Assistant Professors at Engineering Co1Jeges under the administrative control of the Industries Department was treated to be borne in one single cadre with the provision that the post of allied faculties, like (i) Electrical Engineering and Tele-communication Engineering; (ii) Mechanical Engineering and Production Engineering; and (iii) Non-Engineering subjects, as for example Science, Mathematics, Humanities, etc. should be lumped together for the purpose of the cadre. It further provided that separate instruction should follow for the minimum qualification for determining the eligibility of departmental staff for promotion to the posts of Associate Professors and Professors. It also stated the principles to be followed in appointing the Principal, Professor and Associate Professors. The petitioner has averred that though Annexure 6' stipulated the integration of posts of Non-Engineering subjects, but in fact the science subjects were integrated department wise whereas the posts of English, Philosophy, Economics and Civics were integrated in one group and cadre under the nomenclature of Faculty of Humanities. By notification dated the 4th March, 1970 (Annexure 7') the petitioner and Respondent no. 2 Sri Chandranan Thakur were promoted to the post of Associate Professor of Humanities and were posted at B.LT. at Sindri, in which the petitioner was shown in serial no. 1 and Respondent no. 2 in serial no. 2 and the writ petitioner of the other case, namely, C.W.J.C. No. 539 of 1972 in serial no. 3. The petitioner apprehending that his seniority might be disturbed as a result of integration of service of staff of different departments into a common pool under the Faculty of Humanity, made a representation before the State (Respondent no. 1) on the 24th September, 1965 to the effect that the integration of service of Professor appointed in different subjects should not be integrated into one cadre and no common gradation list should be prepared. Another representation was filed on the 12th April, 1967. Copies of those representations have been made Annexure 8' and 9' to the Writ application. It appears from the writ application that a third representation was filed in August, 1969 (Annexure' 10'). The petitioner has further averred that Respondent no. Another representation was filed on the 12th April, 1967. Copies of those representations have been made Annexure 8' and 9' to the Writ application. It appears from the writ application that a third representation was filed in August, 1969 (Annexure' 10'). The petitioner has further averred that Respondent no. 2 also represented to Respondent no. 1 for reckoning his seniority above the petitioner in the integrated Faculty of Humanity basing his claim solely upon confirmation which was earlier than that of the petitioner. The petitioner also presented his case through another representation dated the 11th of July, 1968 (Annexure-‘11') repeated by another representation dated the 4th July, 1970 (Annexure-'12'). It appears that thereafter the Government order-notification dated the 10th November, 1970 (Annexure 13') was issued. The said annexure stated that after careful examination of the representation of Respondent no. 2 and the petitioner, the State Government decided that Respondent no. 2, who was appointed on a permanent basis much earlier than the petitioner, would lank senior to the petitioner as an Associate Professor of Humanities. It also stated that the representation of the petitioner was rejected by the Government. It further shows that this Government order was communicated to the petitioner under Memo N. 4948 dated the 25th November, 1970. The petitioner has further averred that inspite of the aforesaid Government order declaring Respondent no. 2 senior to the petitioner, the tentative gradation list showed in serial no. 1 the name of the petitioner and in serial no. 2 the name of Respondent no. 2 which gave an impression to the petitioner that Respondent no. I was reviewing its earlier decision. But in the meantime the petitioner has stated that to his surprise, a notification dated the 20th March, 1972 (Annexure 'I') was issued by which Respondent no. 2 was promoted to the post of Professor of Humanities in the Faculty of Humanities. It is the annexure which has been challenged in this writ application. 4. In C. W. J. C. No. 539 of 1972 the petitioner has challenged the very same Annexure dated the 20th March, 1972 which has already been stated above and which has been made Annexure 13' to the present writ application under the following circumstances. It is the annexure which has been challenged in this writ application. 4. In C. W. J. C. No. 539 of 1972 the petitioner has challenged the very same Annexure dated the 20th March, 1972 which has already been stated above and which has been made Annexure 13' to the present writ application under the following circumstances. The Muzaffarpur Institute of Technology (in short M.I.T.) was created under the Government order dated the 19th July, 1954 (Annexure 3) and separate posts of Assistant Professor of Humanities for M.I.T. were created by Government order dated the 17th December, 1960 (Annexure 4). The petitioner was appointed Assistant Professor of Humanities in M.I.T. for one year on probation with effect from the date he joined the post (13th October 1960. The notification appointing the petitioner on pf0bation for one year is made Annexure 1' to the writ application. It shows that the petitioner was appointed against one of the permanent posts created by the aforesaid Government order contained in Annexure 4'. Thereafter the petitioner was confirmed in due course by Government memo dated the 18th of January, 1962 with effect from the 13th October, 1962. According to the petitioner, the appointment was made against the post created in M. I. r. which has its separate cadre from other Engineering Schools and Colleges. The petitioner was, thereafter promoted to the post of Associate Professor of Humanities under notification dated the 4th March, 1970 (Annexure 5'). It may be stated here that by this notification, the petitioner of the other writ application and the respondent Chandran an Thakur were also promoted to the post of Associate Professors. In serial no. 1 the name of the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 752/72 appears in serial no. 2, the name of the respondent Chandran an Thakur is mentioned and in Serial no. 3 the name of the petitioner of the present writ application is mentioned. This Annexure 5' is the same as Annexure 7' of the other writ application. As already stated in the other writ application, the State of Bihar, through the secretary, Department of Industries and Technical Education (Respondent no. 1) wanted to have one gradation list of teachers in various Engineering Colleges, Government letter dated the 24th February, 1971 (Annexure 6') along with the tentative gradation list was issued in which the same serial was contained as shown in Annexure 5' aforesaid. 1) wanted to have one gradation list of teachers in various Engineering Colleges, Government letter dated the 24th February, 1971 (Annexure 6') along with the tentative gradation list was issued in which the same serial was contained as shown in Annexure 5' aforesaid. The petitioner, accordingly, filed an objection on the 29th April, 1971 (Annexure 7') which the petitioner has averred, has not yet been disposed of. According to the petitioner, hr was qualified for the promotion in the post of Professor of Humanities at M.I.T. since the 13th October, 1966 and, accordingly, sent repeated representations on the 21st June, 1968, 24th June, 1968 and 27th June, 1968 (Annexure 8', 9' and 20' respectively). He also sent a reminder on the 13th November, 1971. It has been stated by the petitioner that his case for promotion was rejected and communicated to him by letter dated the 17th March, 1972 (Annexure 'II'). By Annexure 12' dated the 11th July, 1960 which is same as Annexure 6' to the other writ application, one unified and single cadre of the post of Assistant Professor at Engineering Colleges under the administrative control of the Industries Department was created with the provision that the post of allied faculties mentioned in Clause (E) of the said annexure should be lumped together for the purpose of the cadre. Government notification dated the 20th March, 1972 by which the respondent Chandranan. Thakur has been promoted to the post of Professor of Humanities at M.I.T. is made Annexure 13' to this writ application which is the same as Annexure' I' of the other writ application. The petitioner has further averred in the writ application that before he joined M.I.T., he worked from the 1st August, 1956 to the 12th October, 1961 as head of the Department of Maharaja Ram Ranvijoy Prasad Singh Bahadur College, Arrah and, therefore he is senior to the respondent Chandranan Thakur who is respondent no. 4 in the present writ application. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed in C.W.J. C. No 752 of 1972 by Respondent no. 2 Chandranan Thakur. 4 in the present writ application. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed in C.W.J. C. No 752 of 1972 by Respondent no. 2 Chandranan Thakur. He has supported the impugned annexure dated the 20th March, 1972 by which he has been promoted to the post of Professor of Humanities at M. I. T. He has stated that the teaching staff in the three Engineering Colleges are of one cadre and the allied subjects, namely English, Philosophy, Civics and Economics have been lumped together for the purposes of promotion to higher post. It has been stated that the order contained in Annexure 6', was correctly passed and it was made to suit the administrative convenience also. He has stated that the petitioner has been incorrectly shown in Annexure 7' against serial no. 1 and the mistake was corrected by the Government on a presentation made by this respondent by order contained in Annexure' 13', in which this respondent was ranked senior to the petitioners of both the writ applications. It has been further stated that the petitioner was initially appointed temporary' against a temporary post as Assistant Professor on the 10th October, 19)8 and this post came to an end on the 10th October, 1961. In the meantime this respondent was appointed against the permanent post on the 15th February, 1960 and on completion of the probationery period, he was confirmed with effect from the 15th February, 1961 at the time when the petitioner was still holding a temporary vacancy on a temporary post. This respondent has further stated in the counter affidavit that on a permanent post created for the first time on the 10th October, 1961, the petitioner was appointed on probation for one year and was confirmed with effect from the 10th October, 1962. The petitioner did not file any representation objecting to the confirmation of Respondent no. 2 with effect from the 15th February, 1961 and therefore, he bas pleaded that the petitioner cannot challenge the said confirmation after 10 years. The petitioner did not file any representation objecting to the confirmation of Respondent no. 2 with effect from the 15th February, 1961 and therefore, he bas pleaded that the petitioner cannot challenge the said confirmation after 10 years. This respondent has also pointed out that the petitioner, after he was confirmed under Government order of 1965, objected to it, but the same was rejected by Government order dated the 31st May, 1965 and thereafter the petitioner did not persue the matter, and therefore, in the present writ application, after a lapse of 7 years, the petitioner cannot be allowed to raise the said issue again. It has been further stated that the tentative gradation list (Annexure 14) did not incorporate the Government order dated the 16th November, 1970 (Annexure A) which resulted in continuance of the mistake in the said gradation list. Annexure 'B' to this counter affidavit In another Government order dated the 31st March, 1971 which has laid down the criteria for promotion to the post of Professor. 6. The State of Bihar, through the Secretary to the Government, Department of Industries and Technical Education (Respondent no. 1) has also filed a counter affidavit supporting fully the case of Respondent no. 2 Chandranan Thakur, contents of which (counter affidavit) I have already stated above. According to the State, Respondent no. 2 Chandranan Thakur is senior to the petitioner and therefore the Government order declaring him senior, is perfectly valid. The promotion to the post of Associate Professor or Assistant Professor is made on seniority-cum-merit basis. Integration of various category of posts in the Engineering Colleges was done after due consideration of individual representations filled from time to time by the members of the teaching staff. The method of recruitment as mentioned in Government order dated the 11th July, 1960 has been made Annexure 'B' to this counter affidavit. Allied subjects, like English, Economics, Civics and Philosophy were lumped together. It is not necessary to state in detail other allegations made in the counter affidavit, but suffice it to say that the State has fully supported the case of Respondent no. 2. The letter of rejection of the representation made by the petitioner against his confirmation is made Annexure 'C' to the counter affidavit. Annexure 'D' is Government letter dated the 16th November, 1970 which is same as Annexure 'A' to the counter affidavit filed by Respondent no. 2. The letter of rejection of the representation made by the petitioner against his confirmation is made Annexure 'C' to the counter affidavit. Annexure 'D' is Government letter dated the 16th November, 1970 which is same as Annexure 'A' to the counter affidavit filed by Respondent no. 2 and Annexure 13' to the writ application. 7, In C.W.J.C. No. 539 of 1972 a counter affidavit has been filed by Respondent no. 4 Chandranan Thakur. The said counter affidavit is on the same line as filed in other writ application, contents of which I have already dealt with. The state has also filed a counter affidavit supporting the case of Respondent no. 4 in toto and supporting the impugned order. The said counter affidavit is also on the same line as filed in other writ application. A reply to the counter affidavit has been filed by the petitioner reiterating the facts stated in the writ application. With this reply has been filled a copy of the Government order dated the 1st November, 1961 (Annexure 14) which stated that the Government have decided that only the Associate Professors and Assistant Professors of the Engineering College would be eligible for promotion to t he post of Professor in the Engineering Colleges. It also enumerates the minimum qualification necessary in that regard. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, contents of which are not very material to be stated here. The petitioner has further filed a reply to the counter affidavit filled by the State of Bihar (Respondent no, 1) reiterating his stand taken in the writ application. 8. I shall first take up the argument put forward in C.W.J.C. No. 752 of 1972. In this case Mr. Tarkeshwar Dayal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contended that the impugned order dated the 20th March. 1972 promoting Respondent no. 2 Chandranan Thakur to the post of Professor for Humanities is illegal and without jurisdiction, as the petitioner is senior to the said respondent. He further contended that the length of officiation in the post should be the determining factor for determining inter se seniority between the petitioner and respondent no. 2. 1972 promoting Respondent no. 2 Chandranan Thakur to the post of Professor for Humanities is illegal and without jurisdiction, as the petitioner is senior to the said respondent. He further contended that the length of officiation in the post should be the determining factor for determining inter se seniority between the petitioner and respondent no. 2. The learned counsel elaborated his argument by pointing out that the petitioner was appointed On the 1st October, 1958 as Assistant Professor on a temporary post and he was made permanent with effect from the 10th October, 1961 when the post itself was made permanent and is in continuous service without any break. Whereas in the case of respondent no. 2 it has been pointed out that he was appointed on probation against a permanent post on the 29th January, 1960 and confirmed on the 15th February, 1961. As such the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case, is senior to respondent no. 2 and length of the period of service of the petitioner is longer than that of Respondent no.2. Learned counsel. therefore, contended that it was the petitioner who ought to have been promoted to the post of Professor of Humanities and as such the impugned Annexure 1' dated the 20th March, 1972, by which Respondent no. 2 was promoted as Professor of Humanities, is illegal, void and without jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the proposition that the length of continued officiation is the determining factor for determining inter se seniority, relied upon an unreported decision of this court in the case of Ramavtar Prasad Sinha Vs. The State of Bihar & others disposed of on the 16th October, 1974, by Shambhu Pd. Singh and S. Ali Ahmad, JJ. It appears that facts and circumstances of the aforesaid case was completely different. It appears from the judgment that in case of amalgamated department to determine the inter se seniority, Government order dated the 10th January, 1956 was issued and in paragraph 8 of that order it has been laid down that the seniority of the Assistants of Upper Division Class III would be determined by reference to the date of appointment to that grade on a substantive or continuance officiating basis, whichever is earlier. It also appears from that judgment that till 1956 the Government did not take any decision as to the principles which were to apply to determine inter se seniority amongst the Upper Division Assistants of Kosi Project Department or River Valley Project Department. It was only in May, 1956 that' the Government took a firm decision that the principle contained in the Government Memo No. 308 dated the 10th January, 1956, would determine the inter se seniority of such assistants and the said judgment is based upon the interpretation and application of different Government orders issued from time to time. In the present case the Government has not issued any order/notification laying down the principles for determining the inter se seniority. Mr. Dayal contended that it is true that no rule has been framed, but according to him in absence of any rule, the principle of length of the period of officiation in the post would be determining factor. I am afraid, this contention cannot be accepted and none of the unreported decisions cited by Mr. Dayal, helps the petitioner. Learned counsel next relied upon another unreported judgment of this court in the case of Madan Gapal Sharan, Vs. the State of Bihar & others disposed of on the 5th September, 1973 by N.L. Untwalia, C.J. and S.K. Jha, J. In this case also it appears that there was specific rule for determining inter se seniority of the amalgamated cadre of Engineers of two departments, namely, Irrigation department and R.V.P. Department. That judgment also has referred to a Report of a Committee which was constituted for the purpose of laying down the principles of determining the inter se seniority, which shows that certain principles were laid down for determining inter se seniority. In that case there was specific rule that the seniority in a grade would be determined from the date of continuance of officiation in that grade. Applying that rule, it was found in that case that the petitioner of that case had a longer period of continuous officiation than those of Respondents 9 to 12 of that case and. accordingly the said writ case was allowed. Thus, the principle laid down in this case also does not help the petitioner. 9. In the present case, as already indicated above, by the notification dated the 4th March, 1970 (Annexure 7) the petitioner as well as Respondent no. accordingly the said writ case was allowed. Thus, the principle laid down in this case also does not help the petitioner. 9. In the present case, as already indicated above, by the notification dated the 4th March, 1970 (Annexure 7) the petitioner as well as Respondent no. 2 were at the same time promoted as Associate Professor of Humanities, though in that notification the petitioner has been shown in serial no. 1 and Respondent no. 2. in serial no. 2 but in my opinion that does not make any difference. It is admitted position since 4th March. 1970 both were continuously working as Associate Professors. Previous to that, both were Assistant Professors. It appears that the authorities in order to determine the inter se seniority between the petitioner and Respondent no. 2, has taken the date of confirmation to be determining factor in absence of any rule framed by the Government. The confirmation of Respondent no. 2, as already indicated above, was made on the 15th February, 1961 and the appointment of the said respondent was made en the 29th January, 1960, whereas the petitioner was appointed On probation against the permanent post by a notification dated the 20th February, 1965, with effect from the 10th October, 1961, and confirmed On 10th October, 1962. Thus, it appears that confirmation of the said respondent was made earlier than that of the petitioner. Mr. Dayal, however, tried to explain the position by contending that the very same post to which the petitioner was originally appointed temporarily as Assistant Professor on the 1st October, 1958. was made permanent by a notification dated the 10th October, 1961 (Annexure 3'). According to the learned counsel therefore, the very same post having been converted into permanent one the date of initial appointment of the petitioner should be taken as the date for determining the inter se seniority in relation to Respondent no. 2. Again, I am afraid, this argument cannot be accepted. It cannot be said that the same post which was initially temporary, was converted into a permanent one. In law the temporary post which the petitioner was holding originally, came to an end and on the issue of Government order (Annexure 3') the permanent post was created as a new post. As such it cannot be said that the petitioner's appointment was earlier than that of respondent no. 2 against a permanent post. In law the temporary post which the petitioner was holding originally, came to an end and on the issue of Government order (Annexure 3') the permanent post was created as a new post. As such it cannot be said that the petitioner's appointment was earlier than that of respondent no. 2 against a permanent post. In that view of the matter, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has to be rejected and the notification dated the 20th March. 1972 (Annexure 2') cannot be interfered with at the instance of the Petitioner of this case. 10. Mr. T. K. Jha, learned Government Advocate raised a technical objection, namely, that the petitioner was confirmed by notification dated the 20th of February, 1965 (Annexure 4' ) with effect from 10th October, 1962 whereas respondent no. 2 was confirmed with effect from 15th February, 1961. Against the confirmation of the petitioner he made representation to Government which was rejected on 31.5.1965. A copy of the said rejection order is made annexure 'C' to the counter affidavit filed by the State, respondent no. 1. It appears that as against the confirmation of respondent no. 2 with effect from 15th February, 1961 no representation was filed by the petitioner nor the same was challenged. It further appears that after the rejection of the petitioner's representation he did not move further in the matter. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent no. 1 a copy of letter dated the 16th November, 1970 issued by the Deputy Secretary to Government of Bihar (annexure 'D' which is the same as Annexure 13 to the writ application) shows that the government carefully considered the representation of the petitioner as well as that of respondent no. 2 and after careful consideration rejected the representation of the petitioner and declared respondent no. 2 senior to that of the petitioner. On the basis of the aforesaid facts stated in the counter-affidavit filed by respondent no. 1. learned Government Advocate contended that the petitioner could not be allowed to agitate the matter over again so as to reopen the matter of seniority after several years. Mr. Tarkeshwar Dayal contended that merely on the ground of delay the writ application cannot be thrown out. He relied upon a Supreme court decision in P. C. Sethi & Others Vrs. Union of India. Mr. Tarkeshwar Dayal contended that merely on the ground of delay the writ application cannot be thrown out. He relied upon a Supreme court decision in P. C. Sethi & Others Vrs. Union of India. He drew our attention to paragraph 20 of the said judgment where their Lordships dealt with the argument of delay and latches and stated that in view of the entire circumstances of that case and the hopes held out by the Government from time to time they could not accede to that submission of delay. That paragraph itself indicates the specific circumstances of that case and the said dictum laid down by the Supreme Court does not apply universally. In that view of the matter the submission made by the learned Government Advocate appears to be correct and has to be accepted. However, as b0th parties addressed us on merits I have dealt with those arguments above and have answered them against the petitioner. Indu Shekhar Prasad Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that there being no unified cadre for the three Engineering Colleges, namely, M.I.T. Muzaffarrur, B.I. T., Sindri and Bhagalpur college of Engineering, Chandranan Thakur (respondent no. 4) in this writ application, could not have been promoted as professor of Humanities and transferred to M.I.T. at Muzaffarpur, thus making him senior to the petitioner. In order to test this argument, it is necessary to refer to Annexure 12' (which is the same as Annexure 6' ) to the other writ application). I have already referred to this Annexure while stating the case of the petitioner. Clause (E) of this Annexure shows that one single cadre was created for the posts of Assistant Professors of Engineering Colleges under the administrative control of the Industries Department in the same faculty and the post of faculties like Science, Mathematics, Humanities etc, were lumped together for the purpose of cadre. It has been brought to our notice by Mr. T.K. Jha, Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents an unreported decision of this court in the case of Suntosh. Kumar Bhattacharya Vs. the State of Bihar & others disposed of on the 30th August, 1971 by U.N. Sinha, C.J. and K.B.N. Singh, J. (now acting C.J.) in which the very same notification dated the 11th July, 1960 was questioned by the petitioner of that case. Kumar Bhattacharya Vs. the State of Bihar & others disposed of on the 30th August, 1971 by U.N. Sinha, C.J. and K.B.N. Singh, J. (now acting C.J.) in which the very same notification dated the 11th July, 1960 was questioned by the petitioner of that case. While dealing with the said notification which was again numbered as Annexure 6' to the said writ application, it has been inter alia held as follows :- ".. From Annexure ‘6' it is apparent that the post of professors of Engineering or, for the matter of that, those of Associate professors of Engineering or Assistant Professors of Engineering serving various Engineering institutions of the Government were to be treated as belonging to one single cadre of each of those categories and there could not be any impediment in transferring a Professor from one institution to the other.... " Respondent no. 4 of that case was appointed as acting Principal of M.I.T. on retirement of Sri. D P. Sinha who was then the Principal. The petitioner of that case claimed that he was a senior most Professor of Engineering, and, therefore, he was entitled to be promoted. He therefore, challenged the order of appointment of respondent no.4 as Principal who was transferred from B.I.T., Sindri to M.I.T., Muzaffarpur. It was contended in that case that respondent no. 4, being an outsider to the cadre of the Professor of M.I.T., could not have been appointed as acting Principal in super-session of the petitioner's claim. The said claim was negative and the writ application was dismissed. Thus, in my opinion, the judgment in the case of Santosh Kumar Bhattacharya (Supra) is a complete answer to the point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that even if it be assumed that there was one unified cadre for the three Engineering Colleges, the petitioner being senior to respondent no. 4 ought to have been promoted as Professor of Humanities and as such the notification dated the 20th March, 1972 (Annexure 13') is illegal and without jurisdiction. In order to support this argument, the learned counsel pointed out that before the petitioner joined M.I.T. at Muzaffarpur on the 13th October, 1961. 4 ought to have been promoted as Professor of Humanities and as such the notification dated the 20th March, 1972 (Annexure 13') is illegal and without jurisdiction. In order to support this argument, the learned counsel pointed out that before the petitioner joined M.I.T. at Muzaffarpur on the 13th October, 1961. he was Head of the Department in a private college, named, Maharaja Ram Ranvijoy Prasad Singh Bahadur College, Arrah and served there from the 1st August, 1956 till the 12th October, 1961 and this period should have been counted by the authority concerned in order to determine the seniority between the petitioner and respondent no. 4. A decision in the case of Dr. C. M. Srivastava vs. Stare of Bihar was cited in proposition that the right to get promotion is a legal right and a person affected can move the court under Article 226 where his right guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution has been affected. Another decision in the case of Gaya Pd. Pandey vrs. the State of Bihar' and others was cited for the proposition that by subsequent amendment the further right of promotion cannot be taken away as it would offend Article 16 of the Constitution. Mr. T.K. Jha, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State has not challenged the proposition laid down in the aforesaid cases and the said proposition has not been disputed by any body at the Bar. He however contended that the aforesaid period during which the petitioner served as Head of the Department in a private colleges cannot be tagged with the service in M.I.T. at Muzaffarpur. The learned counsel rightly contended that those two services are completely different and in absence of any rule framed by the Government, these periods cannot be tagged with the period of service in M.I.T. Muzaffarpur. If the period of service of the petitioner of the private college is excluded, then by no stretch of imagination the petitioner can claim to be senior to respondent no. 4, the petitioner having been appointed on probation on the 13th October, 1961 and confirmed on the 13th October, 1962, where as respondent no. 4 was appointed on the 26th January, 1960 on probation against the permanent post and confirmed on the 15th February, 1961. Thus, both the dates viz, appointment on probation and confirmation are earlier in the case of respondent no. 4 was appointed on the 26th January, 1960 on probation against the permanent post and confirmed on the 15th February, 1961. Thus, both the dates viz, appointment on probation and confirmation are earlier in the case of respondent no. 4 than those of the petitioner. In my opinion therefore, this claim of the petitioner also fails. 12. It was next argued by Mr. Indu Shekhar Pd. Sinha that the objection preferred by the petitioner against the tentative gradation list not having been disposed of the promotion made to respondent Chandranan Thakur by Annexure 13' dated 20th March, 1972, is illegal and without jurisdiction. In support of his argument he drew our attention to paragraphs 9 and 10 of the writ application wherein it has been stated that the petitioner sent an objection dated the 29th April, 1971 (Annexure 7') to respondent no. 3 against the gradation list which was still pending. In reply to this argument learned Government. Advocate seriously contested the factual position stated in paragraphs 9 and 10 and brought to our notice the statement made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 1 wherein in paragraphs 7 and 8 it has been stated that the representation of the petitioner was rejected by Government after thoroughly examining the position which is apparent from the letter dated 4th March, 1972 (Annexure 11’) which shows that the petitioner's prayer for promotion was rejected. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that consequent upon the rejection of the representation of the petitioner respondent no. 4 Chandranan Thakur was declared senior to the petitioner after examining the relevant factors and after obtaining the recommendation of B.P.S. C.A copy of the letter sent from tile Commission dated 12th February, 1972 (Annexure 'F' to the counter-affidavit) shows that promotion was made in accordance with the recommendation made by the commission. Thus the learned Government Advocate contended that it was not correct to say that without disposing of the representation against the gradation list and the representation of the petitioner to make him senior to respondent no. 4 the order contained in the impugned Annexure 13' dated 20.3.1972 was passed. Thus this contenti0n of learned counsel for the petitioner also fails. 13. A decision was cited at the Bar in G.R. Luthra, Additional District Judge, Delhi vrs. Lt. 4 the order contained in the impugned Annexure 13' dated 20.3.1972 was passed. Thus this contenti0n of learned counsel for the petitioner also fails. 13. A decision was cited at the Bar in G.R. Luthra, Additional District Judge, Delhi vrs. Lt. Governor, Delhi and others in support of the proposition that length of service rendered by a candidate should be the determining factor for determining the seniority. The Supreme court case on the fact itself is distinguishable and has no application to the present case. fn that case the criteria for determining the seniority was laid down in the Delhi Higher Judicial service Rules 1970. Rule 6 (4) of the said rules is referred to in the said judgment and it has been stated that the length of service rendered by the candidates as Additional District and Sessions Judges is the criteria to fix the seniority. Thus the aforesaid Supreme court decision has no application to the facts of the present, case. I have already disposed of the contention raised by learned counsel of the respective petitioners on merits and the answers to the questions already made above are not affected in any way by the legal proposition laid down in these decisions. 14. It was also pointed by the learned Government Advocate that the petitioner did not fulfill the required qualifications as were necessary for promoting him to the post of Professor. Annexure 'G' to the counter-affidavit filed by the State (respondent no. 1) shows that apart from other qualifications a candidate should possess a Doctorate degree for promoting him to the post of Professor. Admittedly the petitioner lacked of this qualification and as such it has been rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate that the petitioner could have been promoted at the time when respondent no. 4 was promoted to the post of Professor by order dated 20th March, 1972 (Annexure 13'). 15. In the result, both the writ applications have no merit and they are accordingly dismissed. But in the circumstances of the case I would make no order as to costs. H. L. Agrawal, J. I agree. Application dismissed.