Judgment S. B. Sinha, J. 1. This writ application is directed against the gradatian list contained being the circular issued by the respondent No.2 dated 13th march, 1978 as contained in Annexure 1 to the writ application as also the gradation list dated 12th July, 1979 as contained iu Annexure 3 to the writ application whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been shown as junior to the respondent Nos.5 to 21. 2. The facts of the case lie in very narrow compass and are not much in dispute. 3. In order to appreciate the prints involved in this case the facts may be noted chronologically. 4. The respondent Nos.5 to 21 were all appointed at different times in between 1960-62; whereas the petitioner was appointed on 4-8-1964. By an office order dated 26-4-1975 as contained in Annexure h to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.5 to 8 and 15, it appears that the respondent No.3 to 8 were posted incharge of the Civil subdivision which posts meant for Assistant Engineer. It is alleged that the aforementioned post is equivalent to the post of Assistant Engineer and although the said respondents were placed in that post earlier to the petitioner, he did not submit any representation whatsoever as against the same. 5. It is further alleged that a gradation list containing the seniority of the petitioner vis-a-vis the respondent Nos, 3 to 21 was published as far back as 30th april, 1978 as contained in Annexure f to the aforementioued counter-affidavit in which the aforementioned respondents were ail show senior to the petitioner but inspite thereof the petitioner submitted no representation against the said gradation list which being tentative in nature, the representation should have been submitted within the time stipulated therein i. e. by the end of May, 1973. It is stated by the aforementioned respondents that the said gradation list dated 13-4-1975 was first in point of time. 6. On or about 2-3-1977 various employees including the petitioner and the aforementioned respondents, who had till then been working a; temporary overseer (Junior Engineer) were appointed substantially to the permanent post of Junior Engineer (Civil) against the sanctioned post and were further confirmed in the said post with effect from the date of issue of the said order. The aforementioned offics order dated 2-3-1977 is contained in Annexure g to the counter-affidavit.6. The aforementioned offics order dated 2-3-1977 is contained in Annexure g to the counter-affidavit.6. From a perusal of the aforementioned Office order dated 2-3-1977, it is evident that it was clearly mentioned therein that the date of confirmation of the Junior Engineer (Civil), whose names find place therein, would not affect their inter se seniority, already determined in the gradation list. It is alleged that the petitioner inspite thereof did not file any representation as against the said office order dated 2-3-1977 inasmuch as the right of the petitioner vis-a-vis the respondent Nos.5 to 21, so far as there inter se seniority was concerned was also affected thereby. On 13-3-1978 the respondent No.2 issued another gradation list wherein also the petitioner was shown as Junior to the aforementioned respondents. The aforementionen gradation list dated 13-3-1978 is condoned in Annexure 1 to the writ application. The petitioner has alleged in his writ application that in terms of the said tentative gradation list as contained in Annexure 1 to the writ application, the petitioner filed an objection, which in terms thereof, was to be filed by 30th March, 1978. It was further mentioned therein that the objections received after 30 March, 1978 will not be entertained. 7. The petitioner has alleged in the writ application that after publication of the aforementioned tentative gradation list as contained in Annexure 1 to the writ application, he filed an objection immediately thereafter as allegedly he was greatly prejudiced by the said gradation list. In the said objection the petitioner, inter alia, alleged as follows :- " (a) The tentative gradation list was bound to bring in injustice to the qualified diploma holders. (b) The names of the unqualified encumbers should be removed from the tentative gradation list and thereafter final gradation list should be prepared and published. (c) Sri S. K. Sinha (serial No.37) was a Non-S. E. S. employee but had not been shown as such. (d) The date of appointment of both Sri T. P. Sharma (Serial No.48)and Sri Hari Bansh Narayan Singh (serial No.49) had been shown in the gradation list 1-1-1964 whereas they have passed the diploma in the year 1964 and whose results were published on 12-7-1964. Thus they could not be appointed to the service even before publication of the result of the diploma examination. Thus they could not be appointed to the service even before publication of the result of the diploma examination. (e) Sri Basuki Nath Ghosh (serial No.46) was appointed on 9-9-1964, i. e. more than a month after appointment of the petitioner, but he has been made senior to the petitioner in the gradation list. (f) Promotion be made only after effecting corrections in the gradation list. " 8. However, it appears that neither in paragraph 14 of the writ application, wherein the statement relating to the submissions of the objection by the petitioner has been mentioned, nor in Annexure 2 which is alleged to be the true copy of the objection submitted by the petitioner, any date has been mentioned. Thereafter, on or about 12-7-1979 a final gradation list, as contained in Annexure 3 to the writ application, was published. 9. The petitioners main grievance as alleged in the writ application appears to be that he is technically qualified to hold the post of Overseer (Junior engineer) as he had obtained a three years diploma in Civil Engineering from bhagalpur School of Engineering at Bhagalpur ; whereas the respondent Nos.5 to 21 dp not have the said diploma He further contended that the Bihar State electricity Board had adopted the Bihar Public Works Department Code and the Bihar Public Works Deptt. Accounts Code and amendments made therein from time to time. The petitioner has alleged that the respondent Nos.5 to 21 are non S. E. S. as they do not possess a certificate or diploma in the Subordinate Engineering, civil Branch, from any Institution recognised by the State Government is a minimum technical qualification required for appointment to the cadre of Overseer, which has since been designated as Junior Engineer. The petitioner contended that as the respondent Nos.5 to 21 did not possses the technical qualification for holding the post which was a pre-requisite condition for appointment in the Subordinate Engineering Services, their appointments being illegal they could not have brought in the same cadre as that of the petitioner. In this connection my attention has been drawn to the gradation list as contained in Annexure 3 to the writ application where from it appears that column No.3 refer to the qualification of the holder of the post as to whether he is S. E, S. or non S. E S. 10. Mr. In this connection my attention has been drawn to the gradation list as contained in Annexure 3 to the writ application where from it appears that column No.3 refer to the qualification of the holder of the post as to whether he is S. E, S. or non S. E S. 10. Mr. B. C. Ghose, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, therefore, contended that the respondent No.5 to 21 being not in any way qualified to hold the said post, the question of their being placed in the same gradation list with the petitioner does not and cannot arise nor can they for that matter be declared as senior to him. The respondent Nos.5 to 9 and 15, on the other hand in their counter affidavit categorically stated that Public Works Department Code which applies to the Public Works Department of the state of Bihar have no application, so far as the employees of the Bihar State Electricity Board is concerned, not the same has been adopted by the Bihar State Electricity Board. 11. Mr. Sudhanshu Jyoti Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.5 to 9 and 15, has placed great reliable upon the recommendations of the Selection Committee dated 17-11-1959 as contained in annexure d to the counter affidavit filed by the said respondents and further drew my attention to the fact that the said respondents do not have the diploma and three years training have not been undergone by their but merely a traning of two years course. My attention has further been drawn to the fact tsiat even one P. P. Diwakaran, who had the diploma in one years training, was also found fit to be appointed in the post of Oversear 12. On the basis of the aforementioned recommendation of the selection committee, learned counsel contends that it would be absolutely clear that there was no bar whatever for filling up the post of Overseer from amongst the candidates, who possessed the diploma of two years training course as also one years training course and as such, learned counsel submits that it would not be correct to say that for holding the post of Overseer (Civil) which has, as stated hereinbefore, was redesignated as Junior Engineer (Civil) on candidate was required the minimum qualification of these years diploma course. 13. Mr. 13. Mr. Mukherjee has further drawn my attention to the resolution No.4 of 1958-59, which is contained in the standing order dated 10th April, 1958, where-from it would appear that the Bihar State Electricity Board had only adopted the procedural rule of the State Government including the rules in Public Works department Code and Public Works Departmemts Accounts Code in respect of all financial and other transactions of the Board till necessary regulations under section 79 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 are framed by the Board in that regard. Mr. Mukherjee, therefore, submits that from the aforementioned standing order of the Bihar State Electricity Board it would be evident that only procedural rules of Public Works Department Code were adopted. Mr. Mukherjee has further drawn my attention to the Boards Standing Order dated 10th April, 1958 and 17th September I960 as contained in Annexures b and c respectively to the counter affidavit filed by the aforementioned respondents, wherefrom it appears that the Board had adopted Discipline and Appeals Rules, Conducts rules and the Medical Attendant Rules applicable to the employees of the bihar Government which were to. apply mutatis mutandis to all categories of officers and staff of the Board except those whose cases are covered by the industrial laws and the Standing Order framed thereunder. 14. From a perusal of Annexure c to the aforementioned counter affidavit, it further appears that the Boards Standing Order dated 17th september, 1960, by a legal fiction was, treated to be the regulation framed under section 79 (c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 . Mr. Mukherjee therefore, submitted that the qualification possessed by a candidate being not an matter relating to the financial and other transactions of the Bihar State Electricity Board the same would have no application whatsoever, in the facts and circumstances of this cases. 15. A counter affidavit has also b. en filed by the respondent No.1 to 4 wherein it has been contended that the petitioner and other employees are governed by the Bihar State Electricity Service Regulation, 1*76 with effect from 1-6-1976 and, therefore, containtentions o! the petitioner that he is governed by the Bihar Service Code and Bihar Public Works Code etc. are not correct. the petitioner that he is governed by the Bihar Service Code and Bihar Public Works Code etc. are not correct. It has further been contended by the aforementioned respondents that after coming into force of the aioremenuced Regulations, the petitioner and the concerned respondents having been placed in the same cadre within the meaning of the provisions of the said Regulation, the question forming ot or constitution of two separate caders does not arise nor the aforementioned Regulation provided for the same. It is further contended that under the said Regulation the employees who were holding the post oi Junior Engineer are to be treated as members of the same cadre and in that view of the matter only one gradation list was required to be published. It has further been contended by the Bihar State Electricity Board that in any event at this stage it is not possible to form two separate cadres on for the non qualified persons and the other for qualified persoris, as the respondent Nos.5 to 21 were appointed long back on the basis of the recommendations oi the selection committee. In this connection my attention has been dravv to the rule 4 (iv) of the Civil Engineers Cadre Ruies, 1976 which read as follows : - "all Junior Engineers (Civil in the employment of the Board be fore the commencement of these Rules or subsequently recruited, who are promoted against vacancies reserved tor promotion of junior Engineers. " 16. Mr. Ghose, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in reply to the aforementioned contentions submitted that under the Service regulation No.5 of the Bihar State Electricity Board Service Regulation, 1979 possession of the requisite qualification was sine qua none for appointment and any appointment which has been made in violation of the said provisions would be a nullity and has to be set aside by this Court. Mr. Ghose in this connection has referred to a Division Bench decision of this Court in Braj Kishore Tiwary v. The State of Bihar, in C. W. J. C. Nos.481 of 1980, 482 of 1980 and 2644 of 1982, wherein it has been held that any candidate who did not have the requisite qualification was not entitled to be appointed in the post of Junior Engineer. 17. Mr. 17. Mr. Ghose further submitted that from a perusal of the office order dated 10th April, 1958 as contained in Annexure a to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.5 to 9 to 15 it would appear that the matters relating to the qualification for appointment in the post of Overseer was also adopted "by the Bihar State Electricity Board thereby inasmueh as according to the learned counsel, the prescription of qualification is also a matter of procedure. He further submitted that in any event the very fact that the possession of qualification of the Junior Engineer as S. E. S. or non S. E. S. having been accepted and followed by the Bihar State Electricity Board for a long time, there is absolutely no justification whatsoever to deviate from the said usage so as to deprive the petitioner from a valuable legal right. He further submitted that the Bihar State Electricity Board, in any event, having accepted the qualification required for appointment in the subordinate engineering Services, which is prevalent in Public Works Department for a long time, it is not open to it to make any departure therefrom in the case of the respondent Nos.5 to 21. Learned counsel submits that such a departure would amount to act of arbitrariness on the part of the Bihar State Electricity board and thus the same would be hit by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Mr. Ghose has further drawn my attention to the rejounder filed by the petitioner to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 4 wherein it has been alleged as follows :- "it is wrong to say that now the matter cannot be opened to challenge. It is reitereated that the gradation list has been challenged in the year, 1980 but after long lapse of time they failed to rectify their own mistake rather arc continuing.1 he actions and in actions are arbitrary, mala fide discriminatory against the rule only to accomo-date same particular persons to their own choice. It is furter stated that there was provision for appointment of non S. S. S. to the post of workers, surveyors, line men etc. It is furter stated that there was provision for appointment of non S. S. S. to the post of workers, surveyors, line men etc. (not equivalent to the post of Overseer) and after completion of seven years of services they may appear for the written test and only after completion successfully in the rnsrit test they may be promoted to the post of overseer whereas in the present case the respondent Nos.4 to 21 admittedly non S, E. S. were being directly to the posts of Overseer which is illegal, aibitraiy. Further more they have been allowed to be in the same or better footing that the diploma holders all the actions are arbitrary and liable to be set aside. " 18. ). In the premises aforementioned, it is required to be seen as to whether the Bihar State Electricity Board adopted Public Works Department Code and public Works Accounts Code, so fur as the same relating to the prescription of qualification for appointment in the post of Overseer (Junior Engineer) (Civil)or not ? 19. From the analysis of the pleading of the parties and the submissions of the relevant documents, as referred to hereinbefore, it would appear that only the Boards Standing Order dated 10th April, 1958 expressly refers to the adoption of the Public Works Department Code and Public Works Accounts Code. The question, which however, falls for consideration is as to whether the requisite qualifications for appointment in the posts require to be filed up is same as in the case of Subordinate Engineering Services or not ? prescription of qualification, in my opinion, for appointing a condidate in a particular post is normally not a matter of procedure although the same may from part of the conditions of service. However, in terms of Sec.79 (c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 , the Board was required to make Regulation not inconsistent with the Act and the Rules made thereunder relating to the duties of officers and servants of the Board end their salaries, allowances and other conditions of Service. The Board, therefi re, had the necessary power also to adopt such rules containing conditions of service applicable to the employees the State of Bihar by way of an interim measure till the appropriate Regulation in terms of the aforementioned Sec.79 (c) of the Act is framed in that regard. The Board, therefi re, had the necessary power also to adopt such rules containing conditions of service applicable to the employees the State of Bihar by way of an interim measure till the appropriate Regulation in terms of the aforementioned Sec.79 (c) of the Act is framed in that regard. However, the same has to be done strictly iu accordance with the law and adoption of any such statutory rules as to the same governing the employees of the Board has to be done in clear an d unambiguous terms. 20. From the aforementioned standing Order dated 10th April, 1958, it would be evident that the Board in its first meeting passed a resolution bearing resolution No.4 of 1958-59 whereby and wheieunder only procedural rule of state Government including the rules in the Public Works Department Code and public Works Accounts Code were made applicable to all financial and other transactions of the Board. 21. The very fact that only procedural rules of the concerned department of the State of Bihar were to be applied in relation only to the financial and other transactions of the Board, the same, in my opinion, did not relate to the conditions of service of the employees of the Board including the qualifications required to be possessed by them for holding a particular post. The heading of the Standing Order which mentions rules for financial and other transactions, is also relevant. In this connection, other transactions referred to in the said standing Order, in my opinion, could be read as ejusdem generis to the financial transactions. 22. Laying down the qualifications which is required to be possessed by an employee for being appointed in a particular post, in my opinion, cannot said to be a matter covered by the term financial and other transactions. 23. This view of mine also finds support from the Boards Standing Order dated 10th April, 1958 and 17th September, 1960 as contained in Annexures b and c to the counter affidavit from a perusal whereof, it would appear that the board of Directors of the Bihar State Electricity Board considered also the matter relating to laying down the conditions of service of the Officers and other staff of the Board in separate meetings. The very fact that Resolution No.3 of 19?8-59, which is also adopted on 1st April, 1958 and contends the Boards Standing Order dated 10th April, 1958 also refers to the rules relating to the increment rule, travelling allowances and disciplinary C9ntrol etc. is a pointer to the fact that the Board by two different resolutions of the same date considered the matters relating to laying down the conditions of service and laying down the procedure relating to financial and other matters separately, although both the standing Orders are of the same date. By Standing Order dated 17th september, I960 (Resolution No.239 of 1960-61) the provisions of the Bihar service Code and other relevant rules relating to the conditions, of service applicable to the employees of the State of Bihar were also adopted. 24. Thus on a careful consideration of the resolutions of the Board, it is evident, that Public Works Department Code in its entirety which includes the provisions laying down the possession of requisite qualifications of being appointment as a Subordinate engineering Service was not adopted by the Bihar State electricity Board. 25. However, it must be noticed that the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Bihar State Electricity Board is absolutely vague in so far as it has not been specifically denied therein that Public Works Department Code Providing for the qualifiations of the Junior Engineer was not being followed. The very fact that even in the gradation list as contained in Annexure 3 to the writ application a column being column No.3 has been provided for, for the purpose of showing as to whether an employee is or is not a member of Subordinate engineering Service is a clear pointer to the fact that such policy was being followed in the Bihar State Electricity Board ; but it is difficult for this Court to find out on the basis of the materials available on records as to from which particular year the said policy was followed. In view of the recommendations of the secleciion committee as contained in Annexure d to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.5 to 9 and 15, in my opinion, it is just possible that till 1962 when the concerned respondents were appointed the aforementioned policy of appointing Junior engineers without having a diploma in three years training was not being followed. It cannot be assumed, that the selection committee who recommended the cases for appointment of the concerned respondents i. e. respondent No.5 to 21 was not aware of the requirement of possessing the minimum qualication of the candidates for the purpose of appointment in the post of Overseer (Junior engineer ). 26. However, in my opinion, the aforementioned questioned need not deter us for a 3 long time. From the facts aforementioned, it is evident that the concerned respondents were appointed in the year 1960-62. Such appointments having been allowed to continue till the year, 1980, when this writ application was filed and till then nobody questioned the legality or the validity of their appointments. From the narration of the facts, as noticed hereinbefore, it would further be evident that even the petitioner, although got several opportunities to question the validity and/or legality of the appointment of the respondent Ncs.5 to 21, did not choose to do so. It is now well settled principle of law that exercise of power conferred under this court under Article 226 of the constitution to issue a writ of certiorari is a discretionary one. The facts aforementioned cearly show that petitioner himself is guilty of serious delay and laches as he did not make any protest in the year 1975 when annexures h and f were issued nor made any protest when all the employees concerned includiuing the petitioner were confirmed by reason of Annexure g. Particularly, in view of the fact that in the said Office order dated 2-3-1977 itself, it was mentioned that the order of confirmation would not ancct the inter se seniority of the empioyees which had already been determined in the gradation list i. e. Annexure f, such delay and laches on the part of the petitioner, in my opinion disentitles him from getting any relief from this Court. Further, even assuming that the appointment of the respondent Nos.5 to 21 were illegal or invalid because they jo not possess the requisite qualifications, even in such an event this Court, in my opinion, should not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. In Roshan La! \. International Airport Authority of india, AIR 1981 SC 59 , the Hon ble Supreme Court held that as the appointment of a person which took place long back should not be invalidated on one reason or the other. In Roshan La! \. International Airport Authority of india, AIR 1981 SC 59 , the Hon ble Supreme Court held that as the appointment of a person which took place long back should not be invalidated on one reason or the other. In the aforementioned case the Supreme Court observed as follows :- - "the appellant had introduced various pay scales in 1973 and some time later they were revised There was no separate dearness allowance until January, 1977 when it was introduced for the first time. House rent allowance was also paid- Dearness allowance became payable at 10% of the basic wage subject to a minimum of Rs. :0 and house rent allowance at 30% of the basic salary. Nothing those facts, the Tribunal observed that compared with the increased paying capacity of the appellant, an inference drawn from the prosperity enjoyed by the; a. ppellant ever years, there was definite need for revising the wage scales It was puined out that the dear -nees allowance and house rent allowance granied by the appellant made little impact in neutralising the cost of living. The need for revising the wage scales was not disputed by the appellant, lu proceeding to revise the wage structure the Tribunal took into account the two principles involved in the process, the financial capacity of the industry to bear the burden of an increased wage bill, and the prevailing wage structure ou an industry-cum-region basis wage scale statements were filed by the parties before the tribunal pertaining to several engineering consultancy organisations but in the absence of pertinent information concerning the steangth of their labour force, the extent of their business, the financial position for some years, the capital invested, the precise nature of the business, the position regarding reserves, dividends declared and future prospects of the company, the tribunal found that it was unable to rely on them as comparable concerns. Holding it impossible in the circumstances to apply the principle of industry-cum region basis, the Tribunal turned to a consideration of the financial capacity of the company to bear an additional burden. in this connection, it proceeded on the footing that the appellant was a separate and independent division of Taia Sons Limited and had no "functional integrality" with the other divisions. in this connection, it proceeded on the footing that the appellant was a separate and independent division of Taia Sons Limited and had no "functional integrality" with the other divisions. Having regard to the net profits earned by the appellant fom 1968 to 19/7 it found that the acceptance of the demands of the Union would result in an increased burden of rupees seven crores, a burden which would duty up the appellants resources and would be impossible for it to bear. The Union modified its demands but even the modified terms, according to the Tribunal, appeared to be on the high side inasmuch as the resulting total burden of Rs.1.7u crores was much higher than the average profits could sustain. The particular character of the appellant, thai it was a service industry and not a manufacturing concern, was taken into account and it was observed that unlike a manufacturing business there was little scope for diversification in the case ol an engineering consultancy, none the less, the Tribunal observed, theie was every reason to expect that the appellant would be able lo earn sound profits in the future, add the instability in its business activries occasioned by the turbulent political situation in Iran, would be, it was expected, compensated by contracts secured in different developing countries. For the purpose of determing the financial capacity of the appellant, the tribunual followed Unichem Laboratories V/s. Their workmen, (1972) 1 Lab LJ 576 AIR 1972 SC 2332 where it was held that the gross profits should be computed without making deductions on account of taxation, development rebate and depreciation. It decided also that there was no ground for deducting the national value of gratuity. Rev ising the figures on that basis, it computed the annual gross profits for the years 1968 to 1977 and determined the annual average at Rs.26.69 Lakhs. " 27. Similarly, in Shri Narshingh Jha and others V/s. State of Bihar and others, 1974 PUR 248 at paragraph 9 a Division Bench of this Court held as follows :- "the circumstances in which the appointments were made have been explained in the counter affidavit of the State in paragraphs 9 and 12, extracts wherefrom have already been quoted by me. Those statements do not appear to have been denied in the counter affidavit filed in reply by t e petitioners. Those statements do not appear to have been denied in the counter affidavit filed in reply by t e petitioners. The position, therefore, clearly is that at the relevant time when these respondents were appointed there was dearth of qualified technical personnel having the requisite qualifications. I have not examined the question whether the qualification aforesaid is capable of relaxation. What, however, is clear, is that even ii there be some infirmity in the appointment of was made in the year 1958, the same cannot be challenged after a lapse of about twelve years. To permit the petitioners to challenge them for the purposes of finding out whether the respondents aforesaid can be promoted or not, would be indirectly permitting challenge to the initial appointments which in my view, cannot be permitted to be done after a lapse of so may years. What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. It also appears that at that time there was such a dearth of qualified persons that there were other instances in which persons who did not have the requisite technical qualification were permitted to be appointed taking into consideration other relevant circumstances, like the experience and the other diplomas held by them (which may not be the diploma envisaged by Bihar Subordinate Engineering Service Rules ). Once it is accepted that the respondents continued as Overseers and their initial appointment cannot be challenged, it necessarily follows that they must be entitled to all the promotional avenues which are open to the members of such service. It is not possible to re-examine the question of their initial appointment again at the time of consideration for promotion to the higher post. Of course, if there are certain qualification laid down in the relevant rules relating to promotions, respondents 3 to 6 do not fulfil, they cannot be considered for further promotion. Hut whether there was any qualification laid down in the rules of Bihar Public Health Enginering Service class II which was not fulfilled by the said respondents will be considered that. 28. Even recently the Supreme Court in Mahendra Chadha and others V/s. Union of Inadia und others, AIR 1986 S.638, held that if an ad hoc employees continued in service for a long time, it would not be appear to terminate his services only on the ground that his appointment was ad hoc in nature. 28. Even recently the Supreme Court in Mahendra Chadha and others V/s. Union of Inadia und others, AIR 1986 S.638, held that if an ad hoc employees continued in service for a long time, it would not be appear to terminate his services only on the ground that his appointment was ad hoc in nature. The Division Bench of this Court in Braj Kishore Tiwaris case (supra) did not consider this aspect of the matter and in view oi the fact that this Court is bound by the decision of the Supreme Court in terms of Article 141 of the constitution, the Supreme Courts decision must be followed in preference to a division Bench of this Court. 29. In any evnet, it appears from the aforementioned judgment that earlier division Bench of this court in Shri Narsingh Jha and others V/s. State of bihar and others, 1974 PLJR 248, was not cited therein. It is now well settled that if there is a conflict between the two Division Bench decisions evn assuming that there is a conflict between the two Division Bench decisions, I sitting single, is bound by the earlier Division Bench decision. Reference in this connection may be made to in balkishun Sao and others V/s. Munno Khan, 1969 pljr page 223, in Jamuna Prasad Rai ani others V/s. Chandradip Rai and others, air 1961 Pat !78. In Shri Venkateswara Rice, Ginning nad Groundnut Oil mill Contractorx Co. V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, AIR 1972 SC 51 in Sknath Shanker Rao Kukkawar V/s. State of Maharashtra, 1977 BBCJ 171. In union of India and others V/s. Godfrey Philips India Ltd. , 1985 Vol.4 SCC 369 and in Balakrishna Rao and others V/s. Haji Abdulla Suit and others, 1980 SC Vol.1 page 321. 30. Further in view of the fact that the judgment of C. W. J. C. No.481 of 1980, 482 of 1980 and 2644 of 1982 Braj Kishore Tiwaiy and others V/s. State of bihar and others, the aforementioned decisions of the Supreme Court in Roshan lais case (supra) was not cited, I cannot follow the aforementioned division bench of this Court. In fine, I do not find any merit in this writ application which is hereby dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, however, there will be no order as to costs.