Judgment HARI LAL AGRAWAL and SATYESHWAR ROY JJ. 1. The petitioner has filed this writ application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the notifications dated 14th of June and 3rd of July, 1973 (Annexures 2 and 1 respectively to the writ application) promoting respondents Nos. 3 to 9 to the posts of District Industries Officers, on the ground that the petitioner was senior to them. By an application under Section 151 of the Civil P. C. filed on the 17th of March, 1978, a further prayer has been made by the petitioner to quash the revised gradation list dated 2-3-1974 (Annexure E to the affidavit of respondents 1 and 2) and the notifications dated 25-3-1974 (Annexure F to the said affidavit extending the period of promotion of respondents Nos. 3, 5,6 and 7) during the pendency of this writ application. 2. The admitted facts are these. respondents Nos. 3, 5 and 7 were appointed as Supervisors (Rural Arts, Crafts and Industries) in the year 1953. Later on, they were appointed as Industrial Extension Supervisors in the old pay scale of Rs. 120-200 when the said posts were created. Thereafter they were permanently appointed to the posts of Inspector of Industries by promotion in the old pay scale of Rs, 125-250 in the year 1955 and subsequently confirmed in the said posts from 20-12-1956. Respondent No. 6 was directly appointed as Inspector of Industries in. the year 1956 on the recommendation of the Bihaf Public Service Commission and was confirmed in the said post with effect from 9-1-1957. All the aforesaid four respondents were again promoted to the higher posts of Extension Supervisor (Industries) in the old pay scale of Rs. 150-350 in the years 1957 and 1958. The petitioner was appointed as Industrial Extension Supervisor in the old pay scale of Rs. 120-200 on 20th March, 1956, and was subsequently confirmed in the said post with effect from 26th Sept. 1958. 3. In the year 1961, the State Government in the Depaprtment of Industries created some posts of Superintendents of Cluster-Type Training Centres. These were Gazetted posts. It was decided to fill in 20 of such Gazetted posts by promotion of such senior Inspectors of Industries and Industrial Extension Supervisors, who had at least put in five years of service on the 30th of June, 1961. Respondents Nos. These were Gazetted posts. It was decided to fill in 20 of such Gazetted posts by promotion of such senior Inspectors of Industries and Industrial Extension Supervisors, who had at least put in five years of service on the 30th of June, 1961. Respondents Nos. 4, 8 and 9 were appointed to the posts of District Industries Officers, in addition to their own duties as Superintendents Cluster Type Training Centres. When the decision to fill up the Gazetted posts of Superintendents Cluster Type Training Centres was taken as above, the State Government by a letter dated 26-12-1961 (Annexure "A" to the aforesaid affidavit of respondents 1 and 2) recommended the names of 27 persons (13 Inspectors of Industries and 14 Industrial Extension Supervisors) along with two separate gradation lists of Inspectors of Industries and Industrial Extension Supervisors, their permanent character rolls and a copy of the recommendations of the Selection Committee, requesting the Bihar Public Service Commission to recommend the names of such Inspectors and Supervisors, out of the above lists, as in their opinion, were considered fit for promotion to the Gazetted posts of Superintendents. 4. The Bihar Public Service Commission interviewed the Inspectors of Industries and Industrial Extension Supervisors on 21-5-1962 and 22-5-1962 respectively, and by its letter dated 2nd June, 1962 (Annexure B to the said Affidavit of respondents 1 and 2) sent the names of 16 persons only who, in its opinion, were found fit for promotion to the posts of Superintendents ofi Industrial Training Centres, as no other officer was found suitable for promotion. The names of these officers were, however, placed "in order of merit", and in those names, the position of the petitioner was second. It may be mentioned that eut of the 16 persons, recommended as above, 10 were out of the list of the Industrial Extension Supervisors and 6 out of the list of Inspectors of Industries. All the above 16 persons were promoted to the posts of Superintendents of Industrial Training Centres. Besides, four others were also promoted, and thus all the 20 posts were filled up. 5. The dispute seems to have arisen on account of the merger of the above two categories by the Commission. All the above 16 persons were promoted to the posts of Superintendents of Industrial Training Centres. Besides, four others were also promoted, and thus all the 20 posts were filled up. 5. The dispute seems to have arisen on account of the merger of the above two categories by the Commission. Although the State Government had, sent lists of both the groups separately, the Government maintained the same position in the tentative gradation list of the Superintendents as forwarded by the Commission according to the instructions contained in the Appointsment Departments Circular dated the 6th April, 1956. The State Government also later on treated the tentative gradation list as final (Vide its Circular No. 11763 dated 4-7-1970) This position remained for a long time without any trouble, but there came a decision of this Court in the case of Ram Parvesh Mishra v. State of Bihar (1971 BLJR 404), which was decided on the 2nd Dec. 1970. In that case, it was observed that the Inspectors of Industries being selected through the . Public Service Commission and their minimum qualification for recruitment being a graduate or Diploma-holder and being subjected to a more rigorous test for their appointment, as compared to those appointed as Industrial Extension Supervisors, besides the higher scale of pay of the Inspectors, the Inspectors would rank senior to the Industrial Extension Supervisors. The question that fell for consideration in that case was the propriety of the power of the Government to classify the original Industrial Extension Supervisors as junior branch and to create a senior branch consisting of the erstwhile Inspectors of Industries, in view of their higher scale of pay and the minimum qualification and the more stringent method of recruitment, etc. 6. When the aforesaid decision was rendered by this Court, the Inspectors of Industries, who were promoted as Superintendents of the Industrial Training Centres and were shown junior in the gradation 1st, made repiesenta- tions on various grounds, primarily relying upon the Appointment Department Circular No, 6509-A dated 12th Dec. 1934 according to which provision, "promoted officers shall keep the position inter se which they held in the service from which they were promoted," the above principle having been re-asserted in Circular No. 5805, dated 17th April, 1966, and then again in Circular No. 15784 dated 26th Aug.1972. In view of the opinion of the High . 1934 according to which provision, "promoted officers shall keep the position inter se which they held in the service from which they were promoted," the above principle having been re-asserted in Circular No. 5805, dated 17th April, 1966, and then again in Circular No. 15784 dated 26th Aug.1972. In view of the opinion of the High . Court, the State Government sought the opinion of the personnel Department regarding the gradation list. The personnel Department suggested in its notes (Annexure C to the above affidavit) that the Inspectors of Industries, who were promoted as Superintendents of the Industrial Training Centres in 1962 should rank senior to the Industrial Extension Supervisors, however, maintaining their inter se seniority categorywise. However the personnel Department advised that the concurrence of the Bihar Public Service Commission should be obtained in altering the gradation list. 7. A letter was, accordingly, issued by the State Government to the Commission to "revise the recommendation sent in their letter No. 1522 PSC dated the 2nd June 1962 as suggested by the Personnel Department." The Commission by their letter No. 3094 PSC dated the 10th Feb. 1973 (Annexure D to the aforesaid affidavit of respondents Nos. 1 and 2) concurred in the proposal of the State Government. The State Government, accordingly, prepared a revised gradation list (Annexure E to the said affidavit which is impugned in this case) and circulated the same by letter dated 2nd March, 1974. 8. The case of the petitioner, however, is that earlier the State Government had decided to create a common cadre by integration of both the categories of posts namely, the Inspector of Industries and the Industrial Extension Supervisors for the purpose of future promotions, and in support of this stand reliance has been placed upon a letter of the State Government dated 12-11-1968 to the Accountant General. That letter does not support the contention as that was a letter with respect to the merger of the posts of Superintendents of Cluster Type Training Centres and Assistant Com munity project officers, pilot project (Industries). In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents also this assertion has been controverted and the petitioner could not place before us any other authentic material to suggest that at any time the State Government had taken a decision to merge the two posts mentioned above. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents also this assertion has been controverted and the petitioner could not place before us any other authentic material to suggest that at any time the State Government had taken a decision to merge the two posts mentioned above. The fact, however, remains, as already seen earlier, that in the gradation list that was prepared after the receipt of the recommendation of the Public Service Commission, the same list was adopted, but there is no material that the said gradation list was prepared in accordance with any policy decision of the State Government to merge the two posts. 9. On the circular of the revised gradation list, in which the petitioner came much . below, he filed a representation to the Minister of Industries. In the meantime, by a notification dated 3rd July, 1973, respondents 4, 8 and 9 were , appointed to act as District Industries Officers, in addition to their duties by the impugned Annexure 1. The basis of the claim of the petitioner in challenge of the impugned orders and notifications is based on the first gradation list according to which the respondents were given lower place in the same and the petitioner was senior to them. 10. The only question, therefore, that emerges for consideration in this case is as to whether the State Government had any authority to revise the first gradation list. Once it is held against the petitioner, then the respondents 3 to 9 automatically become senior to him and the writ application will fail. It is not disputed that the aforesaid respondents entered the service on higher post than the petitioner, and some of them even earlier than the petitioner, and as held by this Court in the case of Ram Parvesh Mishra v. State of Bihar (1971 BLJR 404), the post of Industrial Extension Supervisor, which was initially held by the petitioner, is a junior post. The promotion to the post of Superintendent of Industrial Training Centre, which is a Gazetted post, was to be filled up by the officers of the same Department, namely, the Industries Department. 11. The contention of Mr. The promotion to the post of Superintendent of Industrial Training Centre, which is a Gazetted post, was to be filled up by the officers of the same Department, namely, the Industries Department. 11. The contention of Mr. K. D.Chatterji appearing for respondents 3,5,6 and 7 is that the earlier gradation list was prepared without any application of mind and the State Government had the right to revise the same unless and until it violated any principle and the provisions governing and regulating the preparation of the gradation list. On the basis of the 1934 Rules, which are commonly known as Russel Rules, which were adopted by the State Government from time to time, it was argued that the said Rules clearly state and provide that in determining the seniority of the officers appointed by promotion at the same time from different services, their inter se seniority shall be fixed according to their posts held in the services from which they have been promoted. The position, however, with respect to the persons promoted at the same time from different services may be different. Their inter se seniority is to be determined according to the order of merit fixed by the Selection Board or the Public Service Commission, as the case may be. The position of the petitioner vis-a-vis the respondents 3 to 9 however, is that they were working in the same Department, namely, Industries Department and belong to the same cadre and, therefore, in all fairness simply because the Bihar Public Service Commission prepared a combined merit list, which, of course, it was not asked to do, and the State Government having sent two separate lists of Inspectors of Industries and Industrial Extension Supervisors in the Personnel Departments letter which was subsequently sent on the representation of the Inspectors of Industries, as mentioned above it was clearly stated that it was not necessary for the State Government to take the concurrence of the Bihar Public Service Commission in the matter. Mr.K. D. Chatterji rightly contended that under the provision of Art. 320 (3) (proviso) of the Constitution of India, it was not necessary for the State Government to consult the Public Service Commission to determine the seniority and that it was a matter entirely within the ambit of the executive authority of the State Government. Mr.K. D. Chatterji rightly contended that under the provision of Art. 320 (3) (proviso) of the Constitution of India, it was not necessary for the State Government to consult the Public Service Commission to determine the seniority and that it was a matter entirely within the ambit of the executive authority of the State Government. Of course, in doing that, the State Government had to follow the principles and the relevant rules in this regard. 12. As already seen above, learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any rule which was violated in revising the original gradation list. Some argument was however advanced on behalf of the petitioner that there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice inasmuch as the petitioner should have been heard as his position was altered to his disadvantage. Mr. K. D. Chatterji rightly contended that this argument has no force inasmuch as the hearing is afforded subsequently and the gradation list is circulated for filing objection so much so that the petitioner himself had filed an objection to the same, and before it was decided, he rushed to this Court. This position is fully borne out from a Special Bench decision of this Court in S. A. F. Abbas v. State of Bihar ( AIR 1970 Pat 397 ): (1970 Lab IC 1518). 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also cited certain authorities before us, such as Roshan Lal Tandu v. Union of India ( AIR 1967 SC 1889 ) and S. K. Ghosh v. Union of India ( AIR 1968 SC 1385 ): (1968 Lab IC 1520). Neither of the above cases is of any assistance to the petitioner. In Roshan Lal Tandus case, the question was the effect of absorption of direct recruits and promotees in one cadre and it was held that after the absorption, no discrimination can be made in future promotion. In S. K. Ghoshs case, it was held that once a senior officer in the time scale of pay is selected for promotion to a Director of Postal Services, his seniority cannot be made dependent on the seniority in the time scale. The position in the present case, however, is not as those in the above cases and it is clearly distinguishable on facts. The position in the present case, however, is not as those in the above cases and it is clearly distinguishable on facts. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was selected in , the higher grade before respondents 3 to 9 and thereby acquired any right against them in the promoted posts. Respondents 3 to 9, as already seen were senior to the petitioner and recommended for promotion, rather they were promoted along with the petitioner simultaneously. The only question that has been decided in this case by the impugned notifications and orders is the determination of inter se seniority in the promoted posts. 14. For the reasons discussed above, I do not find any merit in this application and would, accordingly, dismiss the same. In the circumstances of the case, I shall make no order as to costs. 15. I agree