Judgment S. B. Sinha, J. 1. This application is directed against an order dated 18-8-1992 as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been directed to hand over charge of the post of Incharge Head master, Hazari Lal High School, Baliban Sagar in the district of Gopalganj (hereinafter referred to as the School ). 2. The permanent Head master of the School superannuated. He allegedly handed over charge to the petitioner on 31-7-1992. According to the petitioner he is the seniormost teacher of the school and as such he was legally entitled to become the seniormost Incharge of the School. It has been contended that the petitioner entered into service in 1954 whereas the respondent No.4 entered into service in 1958 and both became trained on the same day According to the petitioner, the impugned order as contained in Annexure-1 whereby the petitioner has been directed to hand over charge of Incharge Head master of the said School in favour of respondent No.4 is illegal. 3. In this case a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the state as also on behalf of the Respondent No.4. A supplementary counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the Respondent No.4. In the said counter affidavits it has been contended that a gradation list was prepared for Saran division and from a perusal of the said gradation list it would appear that Respondent No.4 was senior to the petitioner. 4. A copy of the gradation list has been produced before us. 5. Mr. Tara Nath Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however, submitted that the said purported gradation list has not attained finality. From a perusal of the foreword appended to the said gradation list, it appears that a draft gradation list was prepared in terms of the Bihar Nationalised Secondary School (Condition of Service)Rules, 1983. It is also evident that a draft seniority list was circulated inviting objection and final gradation list was prepared upon taking into consideration the objections which were filed by the concerned teachers. However, the said gradation list also provides that despite the same if any mistake had remained, the affected teacher may prefer an appeal within a period of one month from the date of publication of the said gradation list. It is, therefore, clear that the said gradation list has attained finality. 6. However, the said gradation list also provides that despite the same if any mistake had remained, the affected teacher may prefer an appeal within a period of one month from the date of publication of the said gradation list. It is, therefore, clear that the said gradation list has attained finality. 6. From a perusal of the said gradation list, it appears that the name of Respondent No.4 is at Serial No.95 whereas the name of petitioner is at Serial No.706. It has further been stated that Respondent no 4 is in Selection grade whereas the petitioner has not yet been given selection grade and according to 1983 Rules the selection grade teachers have to be considered to be senior to other teachers. 7. Mr. Tara Nath Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the netitioner when questioned, as to whether the petitioner has preferred any appeal as against the said gradation list, stated that the petitioner has lodged protest in relation thereto. However, no copy of the letter of protest and/or appeal has been annexed either with the writ application or with the rejoinder to the counter affidavits. Respondent No.4 has in his counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit stated that even in the School in question, Respondent No.4s name appears at Serial No 2 whereas that of the petitioner appears at Serial No.6. It has further been stated that the petitioner did not raise any objection at the time of preparation of gradation list. 8. Mr Tara Nath Jha, Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the netitioner however, submitted that the seniority of inter se teachers have to be considered in terms of the provisions of Rule 3 (1) (iii) (Ga) of 1983 rules Learned counsel submitted that in terms of the said Rules seniority should be reckoned from the date of initial joining as both of them became graduate prior to 18-9-1972. 9. In this case, the petitioner has not questioned the legality or otherwise of the gradation list. As noticed hereinbefore, the gradation list was made final in the year 1985. It is not the case of the petitioner nor could it be that despite the said gradation list, he was entitled to be annotated as Head-master Incharge. 9. In this case, the petitioner has not questioned the legality or otherwise of the gradation list. As noticed hereinbefore, the gradation list was made final in the year 1985. It is not the case of the petitioner nor could it be that despite the said gradation list, he was entitled to be annotated as Head-master Incharge. In this view of the matter as respondent No.4 is admittedly senior to the petitioner, in terms of the aforementioned gradation list which has been finally published in the year 1985 and as the petitioner had not preferred any appeal against the same during the prescribed period, in my opinion, he is not entitled to any relief in this writ application. 10. This writ application is, therefore, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.