JUDGMENT Uday Sinha, J.-These are four writ applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by Junior Engineers of Bihar State Housing Board (hereinafter called the Board). The common prayer in all the writ applications is to quash the gradation list of the Junior Engineers in the Board and to accord the rightful position to them in order of seniority. The widest canvass of the matter is covered in C.W.J.C. no. 3237 of 1983. The impugned gradation list is Annexure 1. In my entire Judgment the gradation list shall be referred to as Annexure 1 to it. The petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 3237 of 1983, besides praying for quashing of gradation list, have prayed for quashing Annexure 7 dated 11.5.1983 by which State Government spelt out the principles for determining seniority on the basis of which gradation list was prepared. 2. In C.W.J.C. No. 5939 of 1987 the petitioner, while supporting the case of respondents in C.W.J.C. No. 3237 of 1983, has claimed that vis-a-vis the respondents of that case, his seniority should be reckoned as on 31.12.1973 and not 19.2.1975, on the basis of his second joining, as has been done. In C.W.J.C. No. 628 of 1984, also the petitioners have prayed for correcting the gradation list in regard to their placement therein. They have also opposed the case of petitioners in C. W.J .C. No. 3237 of 1983. In addition they have asserted that as between the respondents inter se of that case, they have not been allotted their rightful place. According to them they should have been allotted seniority in terms of the orders contained in Annexures 1, 3 and 5. The petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 3987 of 1983, has also claimed that while he has been placed above the petitioners of C.W.J.C. No 3237 of 1983, in the seniority list he has not been accorded his rightful place vis-a-vis the respondents of that case. He has, therefore, prayed for quashing Annexure 7 so far as it affect his seniority and for correcting the gradation list in regard to his seniority. The petitioners in C.W.J.C. Nos. 5939 of 1987, 628 of 1934 and 3987 of 1983 are all respondents in C.W.J C. No. 3237 of 1983. 3. The State Government adopted some schemes for construction of low costs houses. This was being dealt with by the Housing department of the State Government. The petitioners in C.W.J.C. Nos. 5939 of 1987, 628 of 1934 and 3987 of 1983 are all respondents in C.W.J C. No. 3237 of 1983. 3. The State Government adopted some schemes for construction of low costs houses. This was being dealt with by the Housing department of the State Government. In 1972, Bihar State Housing Board Ordinance came into being. In terms of this Ordinance, the Bihar State Housing Board, hereinafter called the Board, was established. The organisation being new, some officers of the Housing department were sent on deputation to the Board to discharge its obligations until the Board set up its own superstructure. On 14th April, 1973 an advertisement (Annexure 2) was issued by the Board inviting applications for various posts. One of the categories for which the applications had been invited was that of Overseers and Estimators. The pay scale for both of them was Rs. 335-10-396 E.B.-10 435-12-495-EB-12-555 and was/is in equivalent grade. The candidates were required to be holders of Engineering degree or of diploma from Board of Technical Education, Bihar or from Government recognised institutions for Civil, Electrical or Mechanical Engineering Institutions. In the advertisement it was recited that the appointments were to be made to fill up the vacant posts. It appears that the Board took into account the fact that there were numerous unemployed technical hands in the State. A Special Employment Programme (SEP in short) was conceived. An advertisement, Annexure 3 was accordingly issued on 19.5.1973. The advertisement, so far as is relevant, lead as follows :- "Advertisement" Applications are invited from educated unemployed personnel only for the under mentioned posts for survey investigation and project preparation of various housing schemes on fixed monthly stipend as shown against each. 3. Engineer Assistant-no of posts 60. All inclusive fixed stipend per month Rs. 400/-. 4. Overseers-No. of posts -96. All inclusive fixed stipend per month Rs. 250/- (2) General Conditions Age not less than 18 years or more than 27 years (30 years for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled tribes candidates) on 31.5.1971. For posts at no. 1, 3 and 4 maximum age limit is 33 years (up to 38 years for Scheduled Caste/Tubes candidates. These posts are only up to 31.3.1974. 250/- (2) General Conditions Age not less than 18 years or more than 27 years (30 years for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled tribes candidates) on 31.5.1971. For posts at no. 1, 3 and 4 maximum age limit is 33 years (up to 38 years for Scheduled Caste/Tubes candidates. These posts are only up to 31.3.1974. Thereafter depending upon the performance and aptitude shown efforts would be made to absorb as many as possible in the vacancies of the Board." From the above it will be seen that some aspects of the matter are rather significant. They are- (i) The appointees would be paid fixed stipend not salary. There was no pay scale for them. (ii) The appointments were to be only for Survey investigation and project preparation. (iii) The posts were not of unlimited duration but were valid only till 31.3.1974 i. e. a little less than a year. (iv) There was no assurance of absorbing/appointing of each of the stipend holders but efforts would be made to absorb these as far as possible. (v) Absorption would be done in future, depending upon the performance and aptitude, in vacancies of the Board which would imply that there were vacant posts of overseers in the Board from before. 4. Annexure 2 and 3 are the two advertisements on the basis of which all the petitioners and respondents were appointed. All the petitioners in C. W. J. C. No. 3237 of 1983 had been appointed in September, 1973, on a fixed stipend of Rs. 250/- per month. The petitioners do not dispute that they were appointed in terms of annexure 3. The respondents in that application had been appointed in terms of annexure 2 on a scale of pay mentioned at paragraph 3 of this judgment. 5. The stand of the petitioners is that although there were two advertisements and although they had been appointed in different terms, all the incumbents must be deemed to have been appointed in terms of annexure 3. This was submitted on the basis that there were only 96 posts of Junior Engineers in the Board. Apart from that there was no post of Junior Engineer or Estimator and, therefore, all the respondents must be deemed to have been appointed under annexure 3 i. e. the advertisements of pay, 1973. This is on the supposition that appointment can be made only against a post. Apart from that there was no post of Junior Engineer or Estimator and, therefore, all the respondents must be deemed to have been appointed under annexure 3 i. e. the advertisements of pay, 1973. This is on the supposition that appointment can be made only against a post. If there is no post there cannot be any appointment. The petitioner's case accordingly is that the petitioners having been appointed prior to the respondents, they must rank senior to them. The gradation list, in so far as it relegates the petitioners to positions below the respondents, was illegal and ultra vires and needed to be corrected by quashing it. 6. The case of the petitioner Lakshman Prasad, in C. W. J. C. No. 5939 of 1987, is that he was an appointee under annexure 2 to C. W. J. C. 3L37 of 1983 but had been pushed down in seniority on a basis which was not sound. The facts in relation to him are that he applied for appointment in terms of annexure 2. He was appointed overseer. His appointment letter is annexure 2 to this application. The appointment was in the prescribed scale of pay i. e. Rs. 335-l0-395-EB-10-435-12-495-EB-12-555. In terms of his appointment letter dated 19.12.1973, he joined the Board on 31.12.1973 at Jamshedpur as Junior Engineer. Six days after joining he went on leave and fell ill. He kept on writing to the Board for extending his leave. He turned upon 1.8.1974 to join his post at Jamshedpur but he was not allowed to do so by the Executive Engineer. Ultimately, a letter was issued to petitioner Lakshman Prasad by Secretary to the Board dated 19.2.1975, in which it was recited that since he had gone away on unauthorised leave his appointment was being cancelled and on compassionate ground he was being re-appointed from the date of joining on the pay scale to which he had been appointed. Lakshman Prasad has averred that he joined the Board but kept on agitating termination of his initial appointment was not only unwarranted but was illegal and void in law. He has, therefore, prayed that the Board should reckon his seniority from 31.12.1973, and not from 19.2.1975. Lakshman Prasad has averred that he joined the Board but kept on agitating termination of his initial appointment was not only unwarranted but was illegal and void in law. He has, therefore, prayed that the Board should reckon his seniority from 31.12.1973, and not from 19.2.1975. If his assertion is right, it is contended that he should be number 4 in the gradation list and not number 20 as has been done (See annexure 1 to C. W. J. C. No. 5939 of 1987). 7. The petitioners in C. W. J. C. No. 628 of 1984 are appointees in terms of annexure 2. Petitioner no. 2 Surendra Prasad had applied also in terms of annexure 3 but having been selected and appointed in terms of annexure 2, his selection in terms of annexure 3 remained ineffective. The case of these three petitioners thus is in pari materia with other respondents of C. W. J. C. No. 3237 of 1983. 8. The petitioner in C. W. J. C. No. 3987 of 1983 stands out by himself. He was appointed overseer neither under annexure 2 nor under annexure 3. He was appointed in the board as Amin in 1970. By annexure 1 dated 26.3.1974 to C.W.J C. No. 3987 of 1983 he was informed that he had been selected for appointment as temporary overseers on the prescribed pay scale and that if he was willing to accept it. he should present himself and his papers by 30.3.1974, before Executive Engineer, Housing Board, Patna, so that he may be appointed the day he turned up. His averment is that he turned up on 25.3.1974, itself and was appointed overseer. He thus claims to have been appointed prior to respondents 14, 17, 20 and 21 i.e. Surendra Prasad Sinha, Surendra Prasad, Bashishtha Pandey and Rajeshwar Prasad Rai respectively (They are petitioner no. 1, respondents nos. 25, 28 and 32 respectively in C. W. J. C. no. 3237 of 1983). He has, therefore, prayed for being accorded his rightful place in the gradation list above them. The above, in short, are the claims of the various petitioner in the four petitions. 9. The gradation list has been prepared on the basis of principles set out in annexure 7. The principles were that (1) those appointed in terms of April, 1973 advertisement (annexure 2) should rank above all others. The above, in short, are the claims of the various petitioner in the four petitions. 9. The gradation list has been prepared on the basis of principles set out in annexure 7. The principles were that (1) those appointed in terms of April, 1973 advertisement (annexure 2) should rank above all others. (ii) The stipend holders appointed in terms of Special Employment Programme (SEP in short) should rank after the first category. Their inter se seniority would be as prepared at the time of their appointment. The respondents in C. W. J. C. No. 3237 of 1983 have supported the gradation list based on the principles spelt out in annexure 7. 10. The rival contentions must now be considered. It would be apt here to state that all the candidates-petitioners and respondents in all the writ applications are diploma holders. None of them is a degree holder. The stand of the appointees under annexure 3 (petitioners in C. W. J. C. No. 3237 of 1983) is that having been appointed in the Board in September, 1983 (between 18th September and 21st September, 1973) by annexure 4 and similar separate orders, and the respondents having been appointed though under Annexure 2 in December and later, the petitioners must rank senior on the principles that the length of service must determine their seniority. The petitioners, Raving come on the scene prior to the respondents, they must be held to be senior and graded accordingly in the gradation list. Let us examine the basic premise of this submission. 11. It is not in controversy that the respondents had been appointed overseers in the pay scale of Rs. 335-555/-. That is evident from annexure 3. Similar letters of appointments were issued to other respondents who are arrayed as respondents nos. 7 to 32 and 34. These appointments were in terms of annexure 2 i. e. in the pay scale of Rs 335-555/-. The petitioners had been appointed as trainees (Prashikshanarthi). There is a world of difference between a temporary appointee and a trainee. When as the petitioners had been appointed trainees on stipend not on pay the respondents had been appointed temporary overseers in a pay scale. It is true that petitioners also were appointed overseers substantively but that took place later in October. 1974. It is thus obvious that the petitioners entered the grade of overseers much after the respondents. When as the petitioners had been appointed trainees on stipend not on pay the respondents had been appointed temporary overseers in a pay scale. It is true that petitioners also were appointed overseers substantively but that took place later in October. 1974. It is thus obvious that the petitioners entered the grade of overseers much after the respondents. Having entered the grade of overseers later, it is axiomatic on the principles enunciated by learned counsel for the petitioners himself, that they must rank junior to the respondents who entered the grade of overseers earlier. 12. It is significant to note that (i) whereas the respondents had been appointed overseers, though temporarily, the petitioners had been appointed trainees. (ii) The tenure of employment of the respondents was of unlimited duration. The trainees' appointments was only for one year. (iii) Another significant aspect which marks out the petitioners from the respondents is that there was not even an assurance to petitioners of their being appointed overseers It was only stated that as many trainees would be absorbed as may be possible in the vacancies of the Board. Annexure 3 sets out general conditions for appointment of trainees like the petitioners. It was recited therein clearly that they would hold that post till 31.3.1974 "depending upon performance and aptitude, efforts would be made to absorb as many of them as possible in the vacancies of the Board". Thus it is obvious that the petitioners had not been absorbed as overseers in terms of letters like annexure 4. They were absorbed ultimately in terms of letters annexure D, E, and letters like them to other petitioners. 13. Whereas the respondents had been appointed in the services of the Board, the petitioner had been appointed in the Special Employment Programme. It appears that due to the unemployment of large number of diploma holders the State Government came forth a plan to appoint those who had not succeeded in getting employed, in order to avoid their rusting and frustration. The appointments of the petitioners were thu3, a favour doled out to them. The favour in terms of money was not within the scale of Rs. 335-555/- which was the starting point for overseers but it was on Rs. 250/- per month. 14. The appointments of the petitioners were thu3, a favour doled out to them. The favour in terms of money was not within the scale of Rs. 335-555/- which was the starting point for overseers but it was on Rs. 250/- per month. 14. learned counsel for the petitioners contended that when regular appointments of overseers were being made in November, 1973, the authorities were bound to consider the petitioners as well for appointments. In as much as they had not been considered for appointment, their non-appointment infringed Article 16(2) of the Constitution. 15. I regret there is no substance in this submission. It has been averred on behalf of respondents that petitioner no. 9 had also applied in terms of annexure 2 like the respondents but he was not selected. Further, there was no question of infringement of equality clause in the matter of employment. The petitioners and the respondents stood at two different levels. The petitioners had been appointed trainees till 31.3.1974. Appointment as overseers was not in the line of promotion of trainees. It was not incumbent upon the Board by itself to consider the cases of the petitioners for appointment as overseers. Such of them who had applied in terms of annexure 2 received consideration. Those who had not applied remained trainees in terms of annexure 3. 16. To sum up, it is patent that the petitioners had not been appointed overseers prior to respondents. The petitioners had been appointed trainees. The respondents had been appointed to a cadre. 1he petitioners had not entered the cadre till October, 1974. The respondents had entered the cadre in December, 1973 to May, 1974. It is fallacious, therefore, to contend that the petitioners stood on the same footing as respondents and that Article 16 (2) of the Constitution has been infringed by appointing the respondents substantively without considering the cases of the petitioners. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that after the creation of the Housing Board, there were only 96 posts of overseers which were advertised to be filled up by annexure 3. There was no other post All the petitioners and respondents must therefore be deemed to have been appointed to only those 96 posts and, therefore, all of them must be deemed to have been appointed in terms of annexure 3. Reliance has been placed for this proposition upon annexure 3. At serial no. There was no other post All the petitioners and respondents must therefore be deemed to have been appointed to only those 96 posts and, therefore, all of them must be deemed to have been appointed in terms of annexure 3. Reliance has been placed for this proposition upon annexure 3. At serial no. 4 It has been mentioned as follows :- "Overseers. No. of posts-96 All inclusive fixed stipend per month Rs. 250/-” 18. The submission is fallacious. All the 96 posts of overseers were not in a scale of pay but at a fixed stipend. It will be wrong to say that 96 posts referred to in annexure 3 were the only posts of overseers in the Housing Department. It is beyond controversy that when the Board was created some overseers had been transferred from the Housing department to the Housing Board until the Board took final shape. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Housing Board, it has been stated in paragraph 4 that there were some posts of Junior Engineer (which is same as overseers) available in the Housing Board. The Board advertised those posts and 27 persons were selected on 19.12.1973. I have no reason to doubt this statement on behalf of the Board. Further, it is a fallacious proposition that no person can be appointed unless there is a post. Post can be created according to exigencies of the situation. The creation of a cadre is a lengthy legal process. An authority in need of personnel may therefore make appointment even before a cadre has been created in the legal sense. That appointment may be temporary m Ad hoc. In my view, therefore, the submission that there was only 96 pasts of overseers in the Board is fallacious. The respondents have been appointed not to those 96 posts mentioned in annexure-3 but to other posts in terms of annexure 2. 19. The contention that the appointment of the petitioners as well as the respondents was effected in terms of annexure 3 is fallacious for yet another reason. This is obvious from the fact that Binod Kumar Verma, Ram Chandra Pandit, Aftab Ahmad and Dhananjay Kumar petitioners 3, 5, 7 and 9 had also applied for the post of overseers in terms of annexure 2 but they were not selected and later offered appointment as trainees in terms of annexure 3. This is obvious from the fact that Binod Kumar Verma, Ram Chandra Pandit, Aftab Ahmad and Dhananjay Kumar petitioners 3, 5, 7 and 9 had also applied for the post of overseers in terms of annexure 2 but they were not selected and later offered appointment as trainees in terms of annexure 3. It is thus patent that the action in terns of annexure 2 and 3 were quite distinct and separate. 20. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on Surya Narain Yadav and others vs. Bihar State Electricity Board & others : 1985 S.C. 941 in relation to some Engineers of the Bihar State Electricity Board. I have failed to appreciate the relevance of this decision in the case before me. That was a case where Junior Engineers had been appointed Ad hoc, without any post of selective process. They had been working for a considerable length of time and the Board was not regularising their appointment. In that situation, the Supreme Court held that all the petitioners of that case had to be treated as part of the cadre as representation of regularisation had been held out to the ill by the Board from time to time. It is true that in that case also they had been characterised as trainees on stipend but they had continued in service for several years and when some of them had had left the services of the Board the later invited to return back with the assurance of regularising their services. The decision relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners is an authority for the proposition that where persons have been engaged on some representation the authority appointing them or engaging them has no jurisdiction to back out from his assurances. The facts of the present case are quite distinct from that of the decision relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners. In this case, the petitioners had been appointed trainees. The appointment was to last only till 31.3.1974 without any promise to absorb except on good performance. They had been appointed only for survey investigation and project preparation of housing schemes not for all kinds of work. As trainees their functions were not the same as the respondents. Before a year was out they were appointed overseers. That being the situation the petitioners cannot claim to have entered the cadre in September, 1973 itself. They had been appointed only for survey investigation and project preparation of housing schemes not for all kinds of work. As trainees their functions were not the same as the respondents. Before a year was out they were appointed overseers. That being the situation the petitioners cannot claim to have entered the cadre in September, 1973 itself. It must be accepted that where there are no rules of seniority the length of service must determine seniority. In terms of that rule the respondent, entered the cadre several months prior to that of the petitioners. In that view of the matter, I have no hesitation in holding that the petitioners cannot rank senior to the respondents. The petitioners having been appointed in October, 1974, they must rank below respondent nos. 7 to 34. 21. Paragraph 1 of annexure 7, for the reasons indicated above, is unexceptionable. The petitioners had been appointed in Special Employment project of stipend. They would undoubtedly fall in the next category below that of the first category. There is thus no error in the principles set out in annexure 7 for determining seniority. The prayer for quashing the gradation list annexure 1 and the prayer for quashing annexure 7 must, therefore, fail. There is no case for issuance of a writ Quo Waranto ag1inst respondent nos. 7 to 34. 22. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in preparing gradation list in terms of annexure 7, the Board had abdicated its functions and therefore, it was liable to be struck down. I have already discussed above that the gradation list is founded on sound principles. Beside that, the charge of abdication of functions is ill merited. The Housing Board was bound to obey the directions contained in annexure 7. Section 109 of the Bihar State Housing Board Act, 1982, empowers the State Government to give the Board such directions as is necessary and expedient ii1 their opinion for carrying out the purpose of the Act and thereupon it would be the duty of the Board to copy with such directions It thus follows that the Board was bound to act in terms of annexure 7. The charge of abdication of functions, therefore, is clearly untenable and is rejected accordingly. In fine, there is no rational for quashing annexures 1 and 7. C.W.J.C No. 3237 of 1983 thus fails and is dismissed accordingly. The charge of abdication of functions, therefore, is clearly untenable and is rejected accordingly. In fine, there is no rational for quashing annexures 1 and 7. C.W.J.C No. 3237 of 1983 thus fails and is dismissed accordingly. C.W.J.C. No. 3987 of 1983 23. The petitioner in this application was appointed Amin in the Housing Department in 1970. The post of Amin is inferior to that of overseer. After the creation of the Board his services were placed at the disposal of the Housing Board permanently. He was appointed Junior Engineer with effect from 26.3.1974 in terms of Annexure 1 to this writ application. In the gradation list he has been placed at serial 52 below those appointed under Annexure 3. He has supported the stand of those appointees who had been appointed in terms of Annexure 2 (i.e. respondent nos. 7 to 34 of C.W.J.C. No. 3237 of 1983). His grievance is about his placement below those who had joined after 26.3.1974. His grievance is that in terms of the principles adopted by the Board, he should have been given weightage of his past experience as Amin. The counter affidavit and file produced before me show that the petitioner was certainly given weightage in regard to his appointment. It is not necessary to discuss once again the submission advanced by Mr. Subodh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner must rank senior to the appointees of Annexure 3 as that aspect has already been considered while disposing of C.W.J.C. No. 3237 of 1983. In my view, the claim of this petitioner is unsustainable. He was working as Amin. He was appointed after the selection of appointees under Annexure 2 of April, 1973. Till then the petitioner had not been selected for appointment. The fact that some of the appointees under annexure 2 joined after the petitioner had joined on 26.3.1974 would be inconsequential as respondents 7 to 32 and 34 of C.W. J. C. No 3237 of 1983 had been selected prior to him. They must calculate their seniority from that date. The petitioner having entered upon the cadre on 26.3.1974, cannot rank above these who had been selected for appointment in terms of March advertisement. In my view, therefore, there is no merit in case of petitioner Radha Raman Sharma vis-a-vis respondents 7 to 32 and 34 of C.W.J.C No. 3237 of 1983. They must calculate their seniority from that date. The petitioner having entered upon the cadre on 26.3.1974, cannot rank above these who had been selected for appointment in terms of March advertisement. In my view, therefore, there is no merit in case of petitioner Radha Raman Sharma vis-a-vis respondents 7 to 32 and 34 of C.W.J.C No. 3237 of 1983. But he must rank above the appointees of Annexure 3. His position must be below Bashistha Pandey at serial 26 and above Rajeshwar Prasad Rai at serial 27 as he had joined the cadre on 26.3.1974 whereas the petitioner had been appointed in October, 1974. He was given all the benefit to which he was entitled but his appointment having come later than the respondents over whom be claims seniority, he cannot go above them simply because they jointed later. Seniority will not be determined in terms of date of joining but it must be determined on the basis of the date of selection. C.W.J.C. No. 3987 of 1983, therefore succeeds as against the petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 3237 of 1983 but is dismissed as against respondents 7 to 32 and 34 of that application. C.W.J.C. No. 628 of 1984 24. There are three petitioners in this application. Petitioners no. 1 is respondent no. 9, petitioner no. 3 Anandi Sinha is respondent no. 21 and petitioner no. 2 Surendra Prasad is respondent no. 28 in C.W.J.C. No. 3237 of 1983. All these petitioners thus had been appointed overseers in terms of Annexure 2. They must obviously rank above the petitioner of that writ application who had been appointed trainees in terms of Annexure 3 and had been appointed overseers to the cadre in October, 1914. The claim of these three petitioners is that their ranking inter se between the appointees under Annexure 2 was done on incorrect principles and that the gradation list be corrected to that extent. Petitioner no.1 has been placed at serial no. 24, petitioner no. 2 at serial no.23 and petitioner no. 3 at serial no.15 of the gradation list. Out of these petitioner no. 2 Surendra Prasad had applied under both the advertisement i.e. Annexure 2 as well as Annexure 3. He was initially appointed in terms of Annexure 3. He had also been selected in terms of second advertisement i.e. Annexure 3. 2 at serial no.23 and petitioner no. 3 at serial no.15 of the gradation list. Out of these petitioner no. 2 Surendra Prasad had applied under both the advertisement i.e. Annexure 2 as well as Annexure 3. He was initially appointed in terms of Annexure 3. He had also been selected in terms of second advertisement i.e. Annexure 3. The stand of the petitioners is that the guidelines for appointment of overseers was set out under Annexure 1, 3 and 5 to this writ application and if these bad been adhered to their position in the gradation list would have been higher than what has been accorded to them. 25. According to the petitioners the rules of seniority between the appointments under the first advertisement Annexure 7 are as contained in Annexures 1, 3 and 5 Annexure 1 is a letter from the State Government to all Secretary of departments and all heads of departments. It was issued in February, 1971. This direction of the State Government enjoined upon the appointing authority to give weight age to persons who had qualified earlier. In terms of this letter no weightage was to be given for having passed I. Sc., B. Sc. or other examination. A chart was sot out as to how marks were to be allotted. Those who had obtained marks between 45 and 50% were to be allotted 40 point marks. Those who had obtained 86 to 90% of marks were to be allotted 60 point. In between these two limits there were other reckoning procedure. In paragraph 2, marks/points were to be allotted according to the year of passing the examination. This chart was as follows :- "Uttirn Hone wale Awantit kiye Jane Wale 1966 … 40 1967 … 30 1968 … 20 1969 … 10 1970 … 0” The petitioners have not stated in which year they had passed the diploma examination. It is, therefore, difficult to say how much weightage the petitioners were entitled to. Be that as it may, annexure 1 referred only to appointment to be made by or under the authority of the departmental Secretary or by the heads of the departments. Annexure], therefore, has no relevance to the appointment of these three petitioners. It is, therefore, difficult to say how much weightage the petitioners were entitled to. Be that as it may, annexure 1 referred only to appointment to be made by or under the authority of the departmental Secretary or by the heads of the departments. Annexure], therefore, has no relevance to the appointment of these three petitioners. It is true that in September, 1972, the Board resolved that until rules were framed by the Board, the rules applicable to Government servants would be applicable to Board employees also in the matter of travelling allowance, discipline, code of conduct and medical facilities rules. It did not include recruitment or appointment. Annexure 3, relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is another letter dated 7.10.1972 from Deputy Secretary to Government giving direction to all heads of department and departmental Secretary. This also was in regard to employees under the State not to employees under a Government Corporation or Board. Annexure 3 also, therefore, cannot be of any assistance to these petitioners. Annexure 5 was another circular from Deputy Secretary in the department of Employment addressed to all heads of department and departmental Secretary. Annexure 1, 3 and 5, therefore, can be of no assistance to the petitioners. I then come to annexure 6. This is a minute of the proceeding of a meeting held in the room of the Development Commissioner on 6.7.1973. The meeting was attended by several officers of the Government as also P. J. Prasad, Chairman of Bihar State Housing Board. This meeting adopted a decision to the effect that some weightage should be given to incumbents for the period of waiting i.e, those who had passed two years earlier to the date of appointment should be given the benefit of 5% extra marks, those who had passed three years earlier 10% marks and those who had passed four years earlier should be given weightage of 15% marks. In regard to these levels of weightage it was resolved as follows :- "The aforesaid procedure may be adopted for future recruitment of overseers as also for recruitment of Engineer Assistants by the Bihar State Electricity Hoard and other similar undertaking if they wish to continue their recruitment to the Engineer Assistants Cadre." 26. Mr. In regard to these levels of weightage it was resolved as follows :- "The aforesaid procedure may be adopted for future recruitment of overseers as also for recruitment of Engineer Assistants by the Bihar State Electricity Hoard and other similar undertaking if they wish to continue their recruitment to the Engineer Assistants Cadre." 26. Mr. Yogendra Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners was unable to show the authority under which the decision enshrined in Annexure-6 was taken and what legal sanctity the recommendations had. In fact, he submitted that Annexure-6 lacked legal sanctity. Unless the decision was adopted by the Electricity Board or the Housing Board, I fail to appreciate how it could have any binding effect. There is nothing before me to indicate that the level of weightage mentioned in Annexure-6 was adopted as a guideline for appointment of the Bihar State Housing Board. It is thus, not possible to give the benefit of Annexure 6 to the petitioners. I do not intend to enter into the question whether weight age had been given to the petitioners or not, or to the question what percentage should have been given. I am not inclined to enter into that question for the simple reason that Annexure 6 seems to have no legal sanctity. 27. Learned Advocate General also on behalf of the Board was candid in conceding that Annexure 6 had no legal sanctity. In fact, Annexure 6 dated 16.4.1974, which is a letter from the Chairman, Housing Board to Sushil Jha, the Deputy Secretary in the Employment department itself, shows that the Board had not adopted Annexure 6. In fact the Board proceeded on different principle as it had been proceeding earlier. The Board in the matter of appointment was giving 4 per cent marks for those who had passed one year prior to the latest examination, 7 per cent for those who had passed two years prior to the latest examination and 7 per cent for those who had passed three years and more prior to the latest examination. The Chairman of the Housing Board went so far as to say that contents of Annexure 6 were different from the decision taken by that body at the meeting held on 6.7.1973. From the above, it is obvious that the Board had been following its own guidelines and had been appointing according to those guidelines. The Chairman of the Housing Board went so far as to say that contents of Annexure 6 were different from the decision taken by that body at the meeting held on 6.7.1973. From the above, it is obvious that the Board had been following its own guidelines and had been appointing according to those guidelines. It is nobody's case that different standards were applied in the matter of appointment of candidates. Everyone was allotted the position in accordance with marks and in accordance with the principles of weigbtage. Learned counsel for the petitioners was unable to say what percentage of weightage had been given to them. In the absence of any material indicating what weighlage had been given to three petitioners, it is difficult to uphold their contention. 28. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in terms of Section 17 of the Bihar State Housing Board Act, 1982, the mode of appointment and conditions of service of the employees of the Board must be approved by the State Government. Reliance was placed for this proposition upon the provisions of Chapter IV of the Act. It deals with the officers and employees of the Board In that back ground Annexures 1, 3 and 5 had a binding effect on the Board and the later was precluded from effecting appointment in any other manner. It may be noted here that learned counsel for the petitioners did rot challenge the power of the Chairman of the Board to make appointments. All that was contended was that the determination of seniority of merit has to be done in accordance with the principles laid down by the Act. In that view of the matter, Annexure 1, 3 and 5 could not have been ignored. 29. The submission, in my view, in fallacious. Chapter IV lays down the infrastructure of the Board namely that, it shall have a Chairman, Managing Director, Secretary, etc. and such other officers as the Board may consider necessary. The Chairman, Managing Director, Secretary. Chief Engineer and Chief Accounts Officer are to be appointed by the State Government. Other officers and employees are to be appointed by the Board. Section 16 (3) provides for creation of posts in the Board. and such other officers as the Board may consider necessary. The Chairman, Managing Director, Secretary. Chief Engineer and Chief Accounts Officer are to be appointed by the State Government. Other officers and employees are to be appointed by the Board. Section 16 (3) provides for creation of posts in the Board. Posts carrying salary, the maximum scale of which does not exceed R s. 1580/- per month, had to be created with the approval of the State Government and in consultation with the Public Service Commission of the State appointment to a post the maximum salary of which does not exceed Rs. 1580/- per month, should be effected by the Board in consultation with Public Service Commission. Section 16 (3) (a) related to ad-hoc appointment or limited duration section 17 lays down that remuneration and other conditions of service of four superior officers namely, the Managing Director, Secretary, Chief Engine or and Chief Accounts Officer and other officers and employees of the Board shall be such as may be prescribed by regulation approved by the Government. Section 18 deals with promotion and punishments of officers and employees of the Board. Section 19 provides for making regulations. That has to be done by the Board with the pervious approval of the Government. Sections 20 to 22 are not relevant for the purpose of appointment by the Board. Section 23 clothes the State Government with the power to stay or set aside any resolution of the Board or any act of the Managing Director. It will be seen that chapter IV does not deal with appointments of officers like the incumbents before us. The Managing Director, was therefore, free to devise methods-a fair method-for appointing officers like the petitioner s and respondents. In that view of the matter, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director was justified in adopting the modality for appointment. That must include the weightage to be given to particular categories of employees for the purpose of selection of candidates and for setting out their relative seniority. 30. From the counter affidavit filed in this case on behalf of the Board, it is obvious that common standards of selection had been applied to every candidate and inter se placement in the list was effected in those terms. 30. From the counter affidavit filed in this case on behalf of the Board, it is obvious that common standards of selection had been applied to every candidate and inter se placement in the list was effected in those terms. There was thus neither contravention of Article 14 and 16 (2) nor was the method of determination certain weight age has been given to particular of relative seniority arbitrary. Annexure 7 shows that categories. I have no reason to doubt that uniform principle was adhered to. 31. We have seen earlier that the State Government, in terms of Section 23 of the Act, had power to annul any action of the Board or of the Managing Director. It being in exercise of powers conferred by law, the State Government not having annuled the order of appointment, they are invulnerable. It could not be challenged in this Court in 1984. The petitioners knew the order in which names had been recommended. They sat over it from 1974 to 1984. They did not move this Court. It is possible that the petitioners may have been agitating bcf0re the Board in regard to their placement but filing representation after representations cannot condone the delay in raising voice against injustice. I would like to repeat at this stage that, I have failed to find any impropriety or injustice in the seniority accorded to the petitioners. Taking a comprehensive view of the matter. I am unable to find any substance in the submission urged on behalf of the petitioners. The application, therefore, lacks substance arid is dismissed accordingly. C.W.J.C. No. 5939 of 1987 32. The facts of this application are that the petitioner was selected Junior Engineer in terms of the advertisement in April, 1973, i e. Annexure 2 to C W.J C. No. 3237 of 1983. Letter of appointment dated 19.12.1973, was issued to him (Annexure 2). In terms thereof, the petitioner joined at Jamsbedpur as Junior Engineer on 11.12.1973. Only a week later he proceeded on casual leave for six days. He has averred that at village home he fell ill and was unable to join after the expiry of the leave. He requested for extension of leave and went on making applications for extension. The petitioner has not averred that leave was granted to him. Only a week later he proceeded on casual leave for six days. He has averred that at village home he fell ill and was unable to join after the expiry of the leave. He requested for extension of leave and went on making applications for extension. The petitioner has not averred that leave was granted to him. The petitioner has further averred that he went to join at Jamshedpur on 1.8.1974 but his joining report was not accepted. By Annexure 3 dated 19.10.74 the Secretary of the Board asked the petitioner to produce the application which had been sent for grant of extension of leave. By letter dated 10.2.1975 the Secretary of the Board, directed the petitioner to send the medical certificate granted by Doctor by whom the petitioner was being treated. Thereafter by letter dated 19.2.1975 (Annexur 5) the petitioner was informed that his appointment by Annexure 2 dated 19.12.1973 was cancelled on account of his proceeding on unauthorised leave and that he was being appointed afresh. The petitioner by the same letter was asked to submit the joining report to the office of the Chief Engineer, Housing Board, Patna Division The Board has treated the petitioner as a fresh appointee on 19.2.1975 and has placed him in the gradation list accordingly. The petitioner's grievance is that the cancellation of his service by Annexure 5 was illegal as no proceeding in that behalf had been initiated and therefore, his seniority must be reckoned from 31.12.1973 i.e. the date of his initial joining at Jamshedpur. 33. There is no controversy about the fact so far as the petitioner's appointment and his proceeding on leave on 7.1.1974 is concerned. The stand of the Board spelt in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit, is that the petitioner proceeded on casual leave on the ground of going home to bring his luggage and remained absent or thereafter till 31.7.1974. He neither returned to he duty nor did he send any application for as extension of leave. From 7.1.l974 onwards he was on unauthorised leave. The Board has He relied upon rule 243 of the Bihar Service Code on to justify the cancellation of his appointment. He neither returned to he duty nor did he send any application for as extension of leave. From 7.1.l974 onwards he was on unauthorised leave. The Board has He relied upon rule 243 of the Bihar Service Code on to justify the cancellation of his appointment. The said rule reads as follows :- "A Government servant to whom the rule under this h ad apply, may during the first three years of service be granted extraordinary leave up to the limit of two months at anyone time." Not to say of two months, the petitioner remained absent for about seven months that too without leave He thus incurred break in service. 34. It may be noted that the leave application filed by the petitioner did not bear any date. Further the mere filing of leave application could not amount to grant of leave. The petitioner had been called upon to produce medical certificate in proof of his stand that he was taken ill and that his illness precluded him from joining. But he did not produce any such certificate. In the absence of any medical certificate it is doubtful that his assertion is correct, or not. He has not even indicated in this application or any other representation the nature of his illness, which precluded him from joining his service. In such state of affairs no fault could be found with the Board, if the Board did not accept the plea of the petitioner and granted him fresh appointment. The Board was not obliged to grant fresh appointment but the Board took a lenient view of the matter and issued a fresh letter of appointment. The petitioner should be thankful to the Board on the Score. 35. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that no proceeding for cancellation of his service having been initiated he Board erred in law in cancelling his appointment. Learned Advocate General showed the notice published in the news papers published on 26.3.1974 that all officers who had not joined had been granted time till 7.4.1974 to join their duties. The petitioner not having turned up to join in pursuance of the general notice, his services must be deemed to have been terminated in April, 1974 itself. Learned Advocate General showed the notice published in the news papers published on 26.3.1974 that all officers who had not joined had been granted time till 7.4.1974 to join their duties. The petitioner not having turned up to join in pursuance of the general notice, his services must be deemed to have been terminated in April, 1974 itself. Having taken the benefit of compassionate appointment it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to say that the cancellation of his appointment in February, 1975, was illegal and unwarranted. 36. Respondents nos. 10, 15, 19, 20 and 27 to this application have alleged that they had learnt that writ petitioner during the period of unauthorised absence had been working as work charge overseer in the office of the Executive Engineer, Tubewell Division, Motihari of Minor Irrigation Department and therefore, he was not entitled to reckon his seniority from 31.12.1973. The assertion has been denied by the petitioner. Since this fact is in controversy, I have not taken note of it. 37. Be that as it may, the petitioner took the appointment as granted on 10.2.1975 by Annexure 5. He must be deemed to have acquiesced in his fresh appointment. A tentative gradation list was prepared in November, 1981. In that gradation list the petitioner has been assigned the position that he has now been accorded in the final gradation list. He never agitated against it. Even after the latest gradation list prepared in 191:13, the petitioner woke up in 1987 to challenge his placement in the gradation list after seeing that several others had moved this Court. I am unable to find any fault with Annexure 5 cancelling his appointment of 1973 and appointing him afresh in February, 1975. In my view, therefore, the petitioner has been rightly accorded the position in the gradation list. In my view, therefore, there is no merit in this application as well. 38. Having considered all aspects of the matter, I am of the view that there is no merit in any of the applications. All of them are thus dismissed accordingly. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.