JUDGMENT G. C. Bharuka, J. - The present writ application has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the office order as contained in memo no. 1596 dated 30-3-1990 (Annexure-1) issued by the Deputy Secretary to the State Government in the Minor Irrigation Department whereby the order no. 2701 dated 27-5-1983 (Annexure-4) passed by the Chief Engineer of Minor Irrigation Department granting promotion to the petitioners, has been cancelled. The petitioners have made a prayer for some other consequential reliefs as well. 2. The basic facts are not in dispute. The petitioner no. 1 joined the post of Blue Printer on 24-11-80 in the office of Minor Irrigation Investigation Circle, Patna and similarly petitioner no. 2 joined the post of Treasurer Guard on 28-3-79 in the office of Minor Irrigation Investigation, Katihar. It also appears that the Chief Engineer, Respondent no. 3 issued letter no. 2701 dated 27th May, 1983, promoting both the petitioners' on the post of Correspondence Clerk in the office of Minor. Irrigation Investigation Division, Bhagalpur and Darbhanga respectively. It further appears that in pursuance of the said order of the Respondent no. 3, petitioner no. 1 joined the post of Correspondence Clerk in the office of Minor Irrigation Investigation Division, Bhagalpur. However, at Darbhanga post of Correspondence Clerk was not vacant and so petitioner no. 2 was adjusted on the post of Routine Clerk at Darbhanga division under the orders of Respondent no. 3. Thereafter the petitioners are working on their respective posts. 3. Now by the impugned order dated 30-3-90 as contained in memo no. 1596 (Annexure-1), the Deputy Secretary to the State Government in the Minor Irrigation Department, has cancelled the order of promotion of the petitioners as contained in Annexure-4 to this application on the ground that the petitioners were wrongly promoted without considering their seniority and thereby the petitioners have been demoted to their earlier posts which they were holding before promotion. 4. Rival contentions on behalf of the parties are almost identical as have been detailed in C.W.J.C. No. 2260 of 1990 (Vijay Kumar Singh versus The State of Bihar and others), which has been disposed of today by this Court. For the reasons discussed in detail in the aforesaid case (C.W.J.C. No. 2260 of 1990) I hold that the impugned order (Annexure-1) cannot be sustained in the eye of law and it must be quashed. 5. For the reasons discussed in detail in the aforesaid case (C.W.J.C. No. 2260 of 1990) I hold that the impugned order (Annexure-1) cannot be sustained in the eye of law and it must be quashed. 5. Accordingly the writ application is allowed and the order as contained in Annexure-1 is hereby quashed. There shall be no order as to costs.