BY COURT In an application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner prays for quashing annexure-14. By annexure-14, respondents 2 and 3 have prepared two gradation list of the Assistant Probation Officers and the Probation Officers. 2. The petitioner challenges the gradation list on the ground that be is senior to respondents 5 to 7. He has been shown below Respondents 5 to 7 both in the gradation list of Assistant Probation Officers and Probation Officer. His grievance is that though he was promoted earlier to respondents 5 to 7 as a Probation Officer, yet he has been shown below these respondents. On the basis of a scheme, the petitioner and respondents 5 to 7 were appointed in 1959 as Probation Assistant and Lady Probation Assistants respectively. Respondents 5 to 7 were appointed on 20th March, 19 and the petitioner was appointed on 17th June, 1959. 3. The simple point for consideration is t whether the appointment was made as a result of the same transaction or not ? The expression 'same transaction' has been defined In Note to paragraph no.3 (1) (a) in circular letter no.3/Rr-106/72-P-1578 4 dated 26th August, 1972 issued by the Department of Personnel, Government of Bihar to all Principal Secretaries and others (hereinafter referred to as 1972 circular). It is necessary to quote the meaning of the expression 'same transaction' as mentioned in 1972 circular which runs as follows : "The expression 'at the same time means' in the same transactions'. The word 'transaction" refers to the decision of the competent authority where by It is decided to fill in a certain number of posts by direct appointment' and others 'by promotion' out of a given total. On account of procedural delays actual appointments may take place in stages or on different dates. Nevertheless all such appointments are to be construed as belonging to the same transaction because of the decision having been taken on the same date, for filling up the vacancies" . 4. On a perusal of this definition, it is clear that if the State Government has decided on a certain date to appoint certain persons, such appointment though made at several stages will be deemed to be in the same transaction. In this connection, learned Counsel for the petitioner relies on paragraph no. 4. On a perusal of this definition, it is clear that if the State Government has decided on a certain date to appoint certain persons, such appointment though made at several stages will be deemed to be in the same transaction. In this connection, learned Counsel for the petitioner relies on paragraph no. 3 or the supplementary affidavit of the State it is mentioned there in that the State Government took its decision on the basis of the order or the Minister dated 27th April, 1958 in respect of the appointment of Male Probation Assistants and Female Probation Assistants. In this connection annexure-K attached to the supplementary affidavit was referred to. On a perusal of annexure-K, it will appear that it is mentioned therein that the Minister of Jails decided on 27th April, 1958 to appoint Male and Female Probation Assistants. We, therefore, hold that the appointment of Male Probation Assistants and Female Probation Assistants was made on the basis of the decision made by the Government on 27th April, 1958, and, as such, the appointment of Male and Female Probation Assistants would be deemed to be in the same transaction. If it is in the same transaction, both the categories of Male and Female Probation Assistants shall come within the preview or one cadre. There is nothing on the record to suggest that any separate cadre was created for the appointment of Male Probation Assistants or Female Probation Assistant. 5. In this connection, learned Counsel for the respondents relied on annexure-1 for the purpose of showing that there were separate cadres of Male Probation Assistants and Lady Probation Assistants and both the cadres were amalgamated by the order contained in annexure-I dated 13tb November, 1959 and they were designated as Assistant Probation Officers. We are unable to accept the contention of the learned Counsel of the respondents on the basis of the statement of fact mentioned in annexure-I. It is stated in annexure-I as follows "I am directed to say that the designation of two categories of Probation services staff viz, Probation Assistants and Lady Probation Assistant who were on the same scale of pay of Rs. 100-5-130 EB-6-190 have been changed to that of Assistant Probation Officers and they have been integrated into a single cadre." On a perusal of Annexure-I. it is clear that only the designations of the Probation Assistants and Lady Probation Assistants were changed into Assistant Probation Officers. It is also clear that there were no two cadres at the time of appointment of both the Probation Assistants and lady Probation Assistants. 6. We quash annexure-14 simply on the ground that no reason nor any principle has been indicated white preparing the gradation list. We direct that in all gradation lists which are being prepared in the State of Bihar all the departments should mention the principle and reason on which seniority list is based. If it is not mentioned, the gradation list will not be considered in accordance with the direction or this Court. We direct respondents 2, 3 and 4 to prepare a fresh seniority list of the petitioner and respondents to 7 in the light of 1958 circular is well as in the light of the 1972 circular farmed by the Personnel Department of the Government of Bihar. 7. So far as respondent no. 7 is concerned her position as Principal Probation Officer shall not be disturbed as she is serving on this post since about thirteen years. The department no.7 as well without disturbing her position without prejudice to the claim of the petitioner. 8. In the result, the petition is allowed, annexure-14 is quashed to the extent so far as the seniority between the petitioner and Respondents 5 to 7 is concerned, and Respondents 2, 3 and 4 are directed to prepare the seniority list after hearing the petitioner and respondents 5 to 7 within three months from the date of the receipt of the order. The parties shall bear their own costs. Application allowed.