Judgment B. P. Singh, J. 1. The petitioner in the instant writ petition has prayed for quashing of the final gradation list of Junior Engineers (Mechanical)in the department of Water Resources published on 9th July, 1990. The grievance of the petitioner is that whereas his name appears at serial No.261, it should have appeared between serial numbers 190 and 191. According to him the date which has been taken into account for reckoning seniority is 25-1-1973. According to him the relevant date which should have been taken into account is 24-5-1968. If 24-5-1968 is taken to be the relevant date for reckoning seniority he should have been at serial No.191 in the impugned seniority list. 2. The facts of this case are not in dispute. According to the petitioner he was appointed a Mechanical Overseer in the Tubewell Circle of the Public Works Department which was a work-charged establishment. He was appointed on 24-5-1968. The letter of appointment, Annexure-1, shows that he was appointed for a period of six months only and that his appointment was purely temporary and liable to be terminated at any time without notice. According to the petitioner his services were extended from time to time. Ultimately by the order Annexure-2 dated 25-1-1973 the petitioner was appointed as a Mechanical Overseer, now known as junior Engineer, in the regular service known as Bihar State Subordinate engineering Service. He, therefore, contends that the entire period for which he had served under the work-charged establishment should be counted for recknoning his seniority in the cadre of the regular service to which he was appointed on 25-1-1973. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents and the State have strongly opposed the application contending that the past services rendered by the petitioner may be relevant for the purpose of giving him monetary benefits and such other benefits to which he may be entitled in law but that cannot give him a right to claim seniority over members of the regular service who were borne on the cadre of the service even from before the date on which the petitioner was appointed to the service as a direct recruit by absorption. Learned counsel for th state has further submitted by reference to annexure A to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State that the circular issued by the State government makes it clear that wherever appointment is made to the regular service by absorption oi persons serving under work-charged establishment such appointment shall be considered to be a fresh appointment to the service. From this it follows that seniority will count from the date on which such person is appointed by absorption in the regular service. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that before the seniority list Annexure-7 was finalised, objection had been invited from the persons concerned including the petitioner, as would be evident from the order dated 18th July, 1988, Annexure-B to the counter affidavit. The petitioner did not raise any objection and, therefore, he cannot now be permitted to raise any objection. 4. The distinction between temporary establishment such as a workcharged establishment and a regular service under the State cannot be ignored. Apart from the fact that the expenses are charged to the works in the case of work-charged establishment and not the general revenue, there is another real distinction between the two. Whereas the regular service is of permanent nature, the work-charged establishment is temporary, and is created for the purpose of specific projects of works. After the work comes to an end the establishment may have to be wound up. The employees of work-charged establishment, therefore, enjoy only a precarious tenure which may come to an end on completion of work. No doubt the monetary benefits, such as pay and allowances to which employees of the work-charged establishment may be entitled, may be more or less the same as those enjoyed by members of a regular service discharging similar duties and shouldering similar responsibility. The comparison, however, cannot be exeggerated to mean that their services are in all respects the same. Once it is held that the regular service is distinct from work-charged establishment, it will be futile to contend that a person employed in work-charged establishment can claim seniority over a member of the regular service after his appointment to the service, based on his past service in work-charged establishment. So far as the question of seniority is concerned, it is not merely a matter of conferment of any monetary benefit on an employee. So far as the question of seniority is concerned, it is not merely a matter of conferment of any monetary benefit on an employee. Seniority affects the rights of other members of the service. A right to seniority cannot be conferred upon any employee illegally to the detriment of members of the regular service. The general rule for determination of seniority is to count the service from the date on which one enters service, except in cases where the rules provide for counting earlier service rendered in another department from which it is permissible to transfer employees to the service in question. This is not a case where the petitioner had been transferred to the regular service from any other service, but in fact, his appointment by absorption was by way of a fresh appointment, in fact, learned counsel for the petitioner himself referred to a decision of the State Government dated 4-12-1949, and the provision of Appendix II of Vol. II of the Bihar p. W. D. Code which provides that all permanent appointments to the bihar Subordinate Engineering Service either by absorption of temporary or work-charged Overseers and Estimators are treated as appointment by direct recruitment and shall be made by the Cheif Engineer. It is, therefore, quite apparent that appointment to the service by way of absorption is a fresh appointment, and that is what Annexure-A to the counter affi-davit of the State also provides. That being so, the petitioner having been absorbed in regular service on 25-1-1973, he can count seniority only from 25-1-1973. If he is given benefit of service rendered elsewhere in a work-charged establishment, it would adversely affect the interest of the members of the service which would be clearly arbitrary and unreasonable. An employee can claim seniority from the date on which he is born in the service, and not from any earlier date, in the absence of rules to the contrary. In the instant case, there are no such rules, and the provisions of the Bihar Public Works Department Code as well as the decisions of the government clearly provide that appointment to the Bihar Subordinate engineering Service by absorption is a fresh appointment to the service. Consequently, earlier service rendered by the petitioner cannot be counted for the purpose of determining his seniority in the service, in the absence of rules. Consequently, earlier service rendered by the petitioner cannot be counted for the purpose of determining his seniority in the service, in the absence of rules. In my view, therefore, the relevant date for recknoning seniority so far as the petitioner is concerned, should be 25-1-1973, which is the date adopted in the seniority list, Annexure-7. The seniority list has, therefore, been prepared in accordance with law. 5. Moreover, before issuance of Annexure-7 objections had been invited. The petitioner did not file any objection. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he is in a position to give explanation for the same. It is not necessary for me to go into this question, since on merit as well I have found against the petitioners. 6. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Writ petition dismissed