Judgment B. N. Agrawaland, S. K. Chattopadhyaya J, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. This writ application has been filed for quashing the order dated 26-3-1992, contained in Annexures-7, 7/a and 7/b, whereby the petitioners representation for change of their date of promotion as Assistant Engineers has been rejected. Further prayer is that a declaration should be given that petitioner No.1 was promoted as Assistant Engineer with effect from 4-8-73 and petitioners Nos.2 and 3 were promoted as Assistant Engineers with effect from 11-6-1972. 3. Undisputedly, petitioner No.1 was appointed as Junior Engineer/ overseer in the year 1961 and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were appointed as such in the year 1965 and 1964 respectively. According to the Government decision, which was in force in the year 1972-73, 25 per cent of posts of assistant Engineer could have been filed up from amongst those Junior engineers who had completed 8 years of service and 3 per cent of posts of Assistant Engineer could have been filed up from amongst those Junior engineers who had completed 5 years of service and had passed A. M. I. E. (India) examination. It is not disputed that petitioner No.1 passed the aforesaid examination on 4-8-1973 and the other two petitioners passed it on 11-6-1972. From the aforesaid facts, it becomes clear that in the year 1972-73, these three petitioners had completed more than five years of service as Junior Engineers. Therefore, upon passing the aforesaid examination in the year 1972-73, these three petitioners became eligible for consideration for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer in the quota of 3 percent on the basis of Government decision. Undisputedly, in the year 1972-73, when these three petitioners passed the examination, vacancies in the cadre of Assistant Engineer for being filled up out of 3 per cent quota were in existence and are still in existence. But it appears that cases for promotion an Assistant Engineer remained pending and, in the meantime, the three petitioners and one Bhuneshwar Prasad promoted as Engineer Assistant after passing the aforesaid examination. Thereafter, cases for promotion in the cadre of Assistant Engineer out of 3 per cent quota were taken up and by order dated 8-8-1975, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were granted promotion as Assistant Engineer and petitioner No.1 was granted promotion as such on 16-3-1978 prospectively. Thereafter, cases for promotion in the cadre of Assistant Engineer out of 3 per cent quota were taken up and by order dated 8-8-1975, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were granted promotion as Assistant Engineer and petitioner No.1 was granted promotion as such on 16-3-1978 prospectively. So far Bhuneshwar Prasad is concerned, whose case is similar to the petitioners, he was granted promotion from retrospective date, that is, from the date of passing of the examination. But, subsequently, the promotion granted to him from retrospective date was cancelled by State Government and it was directed that promotion order will become effective from prospective date. Against the said order, the matter was taken to Bihar Administrative Tribunal and the said order was quashed by the Tribunal aftertaking into consideration the Government circular dated 26-2 1969, contained in Annexure-1 to this writ application. Against this decision of the Tribunal, which is Annexure-5 to the writ application, the said Bhuneshwar Prasad came to this Court for implementation of the order of Tribunal, as in spite of direction of the Tribunal, steps were not taken for granting promotion to him with retrospective effect. 4. Before this Court, it appears that the case was adjourned on several occasions, as State has taken time. But, ultimately, a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of State in which it was stated that State accepted, the order of Tribunal on merit and does not propose to challenge the same. Therefore, this Court by its judgment in Bhuneshwar Prasad singh V/s. State of Bihar and others, 1989 BBCJ 712 , gave direction for implementation of the order of Tribunal. 5. It appears that when the petitioners moved for granting promotion to them as Assistant Engineers with retrospective date, that is the date of passing of the aforesaid examination, the same was first rejected without recording any reason, but this Court gave a direction in C. W, J. C. No.6590 of 1991 on 12-12-1991 to consider the matter afresh. Again the matter was rejected by orders contained in Annexures-7, 7/a and 7/b on the simple ground that the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of aforesaid Bhuneshwar prasad Singh is judgment in personem and in not rem. It has nowhere been stated in the impugned orders that the cases of the petitioners are distinguishable. Again the matter was rejected by orders contained in Annexures-7, 7/a and 7/b on the simple ground that the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of aforesaid Bhuneshwar prasad Singh is judgment in personem and in not rem. It has nowhere been stated in the impugned orders that the cases of the petitioners are distinguishable. Even in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of State, it has not been stated that the petitioners case is distinguishable. The State has not even said that erroneous decision was taken by Tribunal. We have also examined the matter and we also do not find any illegality in the decision of the Tribunal. 6. It would appear from Annexures-3, $ and 9 that State Government has given direction that seniority of these three petitioners will be counted as Engineer Assistant from the date of their passing the aforesaid examination. Undisputedly, the post of Engineer Assistant is ex-cadre post. We are not able to appreciate, where is the question of determination of seniority in ex-cadre post. Therefore, we feel that by the aforesaid orders, state Government intended that the petitioners seniority should be treated to be in the cadre of Assistant Engineer from the date of their passing the examination. In view of all these facts, we are clearly of the view that the orders, contained in Annexures-7, 7/a and 7/b. are rejecting the representation filed by the petitioners are bad in law and cannot be maintained. 7. Accordingly, this writ application is allowed, the orders contained in Annexures-7, 7/a and 7/b are quashed, and it is directed that petitioner no.1 shall be treated to have been promoted as Assistant Engineer on 4-8-1973 and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 on 11-6-1972 that is, from respective dates of their passing the aforesaid examination. The petitioner shall be granted all consequential benefits, meaning thereby the difference of pay scale, which must be paid within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. This writ application is accordingly allowed. Application allowed.