Judgment In this application the petitioner has prayed for issuance of an appropriate order, restoring his seniority over Dr. Sheo Shanker Choudhary, respondent no. 5, to be taken into consideration for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (Eye). Pursuance to the service of not ice, issued by this Court, respondent no. 5 has already appeared and filed counter affidavit. Therefore, with the consent of all the parties, this application is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself. The short facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. By a notification dated 19th of December, 1987, issued by the Department of Health Medical Education, Government of Bihar, applications were invited from the intending candidates in order to prepare a panel for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (Clinical Subject) and against other posts. The petitioner and other candidates including respondent no. 5, applied for their appointments. A panel was prepared in which the name of the petitioner was shown at serial no. 2 whereas that of respondent no.5 at serial no. 3, showing both of them having equal points. The Petitioner filed representation before the Joint Secretary, Medical Education, Health Department, that respondent no. 5 by misrepresenting the correct position, secured 32 marks (Points) whereas he was only entitled for 31 points. The representation, filed by the petitioner, was considered by Dr, Gopal Krishna Prasad, Additional Director, Medical Education Department of Health, Govt. of Bihar, and in his note dated 7.10.1988 he mentioned that the petitioner's grievance was correct and held that respondent no. 5 was only entitled for 31 points in place of 32 points. Inspite of the aforesaid, no final order was issued rectifying the mistake. The petitioner getting no relief before the Government, filed the present writ application. During pendency of this writ application, a notification dated 9.2.1990, as contained in Annexure-4, annexed with the amendment petition, posting respondent no. 5 at Nalanda Medical College Hospital, Patna, and the petitioner at A. N. M. College, Gaya, was issued. It is alleged that on account of discriminatory and malafide action of the respondents-authorities, respondent no. 5, who had secured lessor points than the petitioner, was posted at Nalanda Medical College Hospital, Patna, whereas the petitioner was directed to join at A.N.M. College, Gaya In the amendment petition, therefore, the petitioner his also prayed for quashing of the aforementioned notification. Mr. 5, who had secured lessor points than the petitioner, was posted at Nalanda Medical College Hospital, Patna, whereas the petitioner was directed to join at A.N.M. College, Gaya In the amendment petition, therefore, the petitioner his also prayed for quashing of the aforementioned notification. Mr. Ranjit Sahay, learned Advocate, appearing for respondent no. 5, while drawing our attention towards the statement, made in the counter affidavit, submitted that respondent no. 5 has served as a Resident and Registrar in the Patna Medical College Hospital, Patna, for over five years and therefore, he was rightly given five points. According to him, for the period of posting as Resident he will get 3 points whereas for the period during which he was posted as Registrar, he will get 2 points. Learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, has drawn our attention towards a comparative chart of merit-cum. seniority (Annexure-5) of the petitioner vis-a-vis respondent no. 5, which has been prepared as per the guidelines, indicated in circular dated 19th of December, 1987, contained in Annexure-4 to the main petition. It would be relevant to quote the relevant portion of the aforementioned chart. Comparative Chart of Merit-cum-seniority Dr. Samir Kumar Lal Dr. Shivshankar Choudhary Points given Points given Special Subject 3 Special Subject 3 Aggregate 2 Aggregate 2 For M. S. Degree 4 For M. S. Degree 4 For Rural Service 6 For Rural Service 6 For Resident For Resident Surgeonship 3 Surgeonship 3 For Registrarship 2 For Registrarship 1 For Publication in Journals 12 For Publication in Journals 12 ------ ----- Total Points 32 Total Points 31 In support of his contention, learned Counsel has also drawn our attention towards a notification dated 30.12.1987 (Annexure-A), annexed with the counter affidavit of respondent no. 5. As per sub-para (Ch) of Para-4 of the aforesaid notification, even any person continues for more than three years on the post of a Registrar, for the purposes of teaching experience, only the period of three years shall be taken into consideration and not beyond that. Same condition has been enumerated in Paragraph-5 (Gh) of the said notification, which deals with respect to the post of a Resident doctors. As par paragraph-6 of the said notification for the purposes of giving points, in preparing a panel, the total period of service, rendered by a person concerned against a post of Registrar and Resident shall be jointly taken into consideration. As par paragraph-6 of the said notification for the purposes of giving points, in preparing a panel, the total period of service, rendered by a person concerned against a post of Registrar and Resident shall be jointly taken into consideration. On basis of the aforementioned notification, it has been contended that for the purpose of calculating points, respondent no. 5 gets 3 years as Resident Surgeon and 1 year 8 months and 8 days as Registrar, therefore, the total period comes to less than five years. Accordingly, respondent no. 5 is only entitled for 3 points as Resident Surgeon and 1 point as Registrar. We find sufficient force in the aforesaid submission. The petitioner had obtained 32 points is not under challenge. On the basis of the various materials and documents, considered above, there appears to be no doubt that respondent no. 5 is only entitled for 31 points. Therefore, the petitioner has better claim than him (respondent no. 5). It was then contended by the learned counsel for respondent no. 5 that the notification dated 9.2.1990, as contained in Annexure-4 to the Amendment Petition, so far it relates to respondent no. 5, had already been superseded by another notification, whereby, he has been transferred in the Patna Medical College Hospital. Be that as it may, we have been only called upon to adjudicate, whether the petitioner has better claim than respondent no. 5. To that extent we have already held that the petitioner has got higher points than respondent no. 5. In the changed circumstances it would be obligatory on the part of respondent nos. 1 and 3 to issue a consequential order for posting of the petitioner as also respondent no. 5 in accordance with law. In the result the writ application is allowed to the extent, indicated above. Application allowed.