JUDGMENT S. B, Sinha, J. Petitioner in this application has prayed for quashing of an order dated 27.10.1993 as contained in Annexure-19 to the writ application, whereby and where under Respondent no. 2 has held that Respondent no. 4 is senior to the petitioner as also an order dated 29.10.1993, whereby the petitioner has been asked to hand over the charge of Headmistress to Respondent no. 4. 2. The admitted fact of the matter are as follows:- On 4.12.1979 the petitioner and Respondent no. 4 were appointed by the Managing Committee. However, there exists a dispute as to whether the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Head-Mistress or not as claimed by her. On 1.1.1980 they joined their respective posts. 3. At the relevant time the academic qualification of the petitioner was M.A. and the academic qualification of Respondent no. 4 was B.A, B.Ed. Petitioner passed the Teacher's Training Examination on 10.8.1981. The School was taken over by the State Government in terms of the provisions of Bihar Secondary Schools (Taking Over of Management and Control) Act, 1981. 4. Upon taking over of the said School, the petitioner was authorized to function as Acting Head-mistress., by reason of a notification as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ application pending appointment of a regular Head-mistress. Respondent no. 4 filed a representation on 15.7.1982 claiming seniority over the petitioner which was rejected, wherein it was held that the petitioner holds a better qualification. The said order is contained in Annexure-4 to the writ application. In August, 1984, a provisional gradation list at the Divisional level was prepared and according to the petitioner no objection thereto was filed by Respondent no. 4. A final gradation list was prepared on 29.3.1985 wherein the name of the petitioner was at serial no. 3349 and that of respondent no. 4 was at serial no. 3350. The said final gradation list is contained in Annexure-5/1 to the writ application. It is stated that from a perusal of a letter written by the District Education Officer dated 13.5.1985 as contained in Annexure-17 to the writ application, it would appear that thereby intimation was given to all concerned that approval has been given to the said gradation list and on the body of the said letter, Respondent no. 4 also had put her signature. It is further alleged that respondent no. 4 also had put her signature. It is further alleged that respondent no. 4 did not prefer any appeal against the said gradation list. 5. It is stated that Respondent no. 4 filed various representations in the mean while to the Director, Secondary Education, Commissioner of Education and the Minister of Education. Respondent no. 4 also served a lawyer's notice upon petitioner on 22.8.1991 which is contained in Annexure-6 to the writ application. By an order dated 19.9.1992 the State Government allowed Respondent no. 4 to function as Acting Head mistress and the petitioner being aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith filed a writ application before this Court on 28.9.1992, which was numbered as C.W.J.C. No. 10013 of 1992. By an order dated 2.11.1992 this Court passed an interim order directing that status quo be maintained. The said writ application was disposed of by an order dated 21.1.1993, whereby the aforementioned order dated 19.9.1992 was quashed and the inter-se seniority of the parties was directed to be considered by the Director of Secondary Education. The operation portion of the said order reads thus: “Accordingly, we direct that the petitioner and the private respondent shall file separate representation before the learned Director, Secondary Education within the weeks from today setting out therein their claim with regard to their seniority and other connected matters and the same will be decided by the learned Director, Secondary Education within a month from the date of filing of representation in accordance with law. If the gradation list has attained its finality in the sense that the same was prepared and published after due notice to all concerned including the private respondent then that should be taken final for the purpose of determining inter se seniority between the contesting parties. Under the circumstances, the order contained in Annexure-'7' is quashed.” 6. Thereafter the impugned order dated 27.10.1993 (Annexure-19) and 29.10.1993 (Annexure-20) were passed. 7. A Counter affidavit has been filed in this case, wherein it is stated that the petitioner was not a trained teacher and thus she could not have been appointed on regular basis. It has been denied that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Head-mistress. It has been stated that from various Government records, it would appear that the petitioner as well as Respondent no. 4 have all along been treated as Assistant Teachers. It has been denied that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Head-mistress. It has been stated that from various Government records, it would appear that the petitioner as well as Respondent no. 4 have all along been treated as Assistant Teachers. It has further been stated that when inspections were held on 25.3.1980 and 23.12.1980 (Annexures-A and A‘l) for the purpose of considering take over of the School by the State Government, petitioner was only untrained M.A, whereas Respondent no. 4 was trained Graduate. It has further been stated that from a letter dated 3.6.1991 issued by the Director of Secondary Education, it would be evident that District Education Officer, Madhubani was directed to inspect the School within two weeks from the date of receipt of the said letter, wherein it has been asked not to include the name of any untrained teacher. The said letter is contained in Annexure-B to the counter affidavit. 8. Further it is stated that the Special Board inspected the School on 16.9.1981 i.e. after a period of three months instead of two weeks, only with a view to accommodate the petitioner. It is further submitted that the representations filed by respondent no. 4 were never disposed of and without considering the same a final gradation list was prepared; in relation whereto various representations were filed on 5.6.1985,/8. 8. 1985 7.12.1985, 12.3.1986, 22.7.1986, 13.l.1987, 20.7.1987, 11.2.1988, 20.12.1988, 25.5.1989 and 6.2.1990. It has been stated that the Director upon consideration of all the facts as also the circular letters issued by the State of Bihar from time to time and Sub Rule 3 (g) of Rule 5 of Bihar Nationalised Secondary School Teachers' Condition of Service Rules, 1983 passed the impugned order. 9. Dr. Sadanand Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised two contentions in support of the writ application. Learned counsel submitted that in view of the fact that a final gradation list was published on 29.3.1985 and in view of the judgment of this Court dated 21.1.1993 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 10013 of 1991 (Annexure-12), the Director, Secondary Education should not have re-opened the matter as the gradation list had attained finality. It was submitted that after an order of status quo has been passed the petitioner has been continuing to serve as Acting Head-mistress. 10. It was submitted that after an order of status quo has been passed the petitioner has been continuing to serve as Acting Head-mistress. 10. Our attention has further been drawn to the fact that the Director in his impugned order has, inter-alia, held that the said gradation list attained finality and thus he could not have re-opened the matter relying on and on the basis of the circular letter of the State of Bihar had no application as the said Rules operated prospectively. Learned Counsel in support of his aforementioned contention has relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in Madan Kant Mishra v. State of Bihar & others, reported in 1984 P. L. J, R. 107 and a decision of one of us in Hari Shankar Singh v. State of Bihar (C.W.J.C. No. 4721 of 1997 disposed of on 12.2.1988). 11. Our attention was further drawn to the circular letter no. 2305 dated 25.7.1971 for the purpose of showing that in terms thereof a person having higher qualification would rank senior. 12. According to Mr. Jha the said circular letter no. 519 issued by the State of Bihar has no application in the facts and circumstances of the case. It has further been submitted that in any event the aforementioned circular letter no. 519 has been clarified by the State of Bihar in its circular letter no. 658 dated 12.8.1983. 13. Learned counsel lastly contended that in view of the fact that the petitioner was allowed to remain Incharge Head-mistress by notification dated 20.1.1982 as contained in Anexure-3 to the writ application, the same could not have been superseded by an ordinary letter unless a regular appointment in the post of Head-mistress is made. 14. Mr. G. P. Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent no. 4, on the other hand submitted that in view of the fact that Respondent no. 4 had been filing representations the gradation list as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ application cannot be said to have attained finality. It was submitted that from a bare perusal of the fact that Respondent no. 4 had been filing representations, the gradation list as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ application cannot be said to have attained finality. 4 had been filing representations the gradation list as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ application cannot be said to have attained finality. It was submitted that from a bare perusal of the fact that Respondent no. 4 had been filing representations, the gradation list as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ application cannot be said to have attained finality. It was submitted that from a bare perusal of the policy decision of the State with regard to inter-se seniority of the Assistant Teachers, as contained in Circular letter no. 519, it would appear that Respondent no. 4 shall rank senior to the petitioner inasmuch as her appointment was made after 18.9.1972. It has been submitted that as the appointment has been made in the year 1980, 1983 circular shall have no application. Learned counsel further submitted that the matter stands clarified by Rule 5 (g) of 1983 Rules inasmuch as Respondent no. 4 was Selection grade teacher and the petitioner was not. 15. At the outset, it is relevant to note that the School in question did not receive the permission of the State of Bihar for its establishment. From a perusal of Annexure-l to the writ application, it would appear that the petitioner rightly or wrongly was appointed by the Managing Committee as Assistant Headmistress and from a perusal of Annexure-l and Annexure-1/1 it appears that respondent no. 4 was appointed as an Assistant Teacher. 16. It is true that at the time of her appointment, the petitioner was not a trained Graduate but she was having a post-graduate degree. 17. It is also not in dispute that the School was taken over by the State Government by notification dated 20.1.1982, which was published in the gazette and in terms thereof the petitioner was authorised to function as Acting Head-mistress till regular Head-mistress was appointed. 18. It is also not in dispute that a final gradation list was prepared on 29.3.1985. According to the petitioner, Respondent no. 4 did not prefer any appeal as against the said final gradation list. 19. However, it is evident that Respondent no. 4 filed various representation. 18. It is also not in dispute that a final gradation list was prepared on 29.3.1985. According to the petitioner, Respondent no. 4 did not prefer any appeal as against the said final gradation list. 19. However, it is evident that Respondent no. 4 filed various representation. It is also evident from the judgment of this Court dated 21.1.1993 passed in CWJC No. 10013 of 1992 that this Court clearly directed that in the event the gradation list has attained finality the dispute about the inter se seniority of the petitioner vis-a-vis Respondent no. 4 shall not be re-opened Respondent no. 2 in his order as contained in Anncxure-19 to the writ application has clearly held that from the very beginning the petitioner has been shown as senior to Respondent no. 4. He further held that seniority list was finally published in the year 1985. It was further held that even at the time of take over of the School, the petitioner was held to be senior. 20. Respondent no. 2, however, has proceeded on the basis that in terms of circular letter no. 519 dated 2.7.1983, the petitioner will rank junior to Respondent no. 4. 21. The relevant clauses of the aforementioned circular letter are as follows :- “Clause 2.-In determining the seniority of teachers the position of Assistant Headmaster will be above unless their appointment as Assistant Head-master is in accordance with law. The inter se seniority of Assistant Head-masters will be determined from the date of their joining on the post. Clause 5 (ka)-The inter se seniority of trained graduate teachers appointed till 18.9.72 will be determined from the date of their first joining as graduate teacher. Clause 5 (kha)-The seniority of trained graduate teachers appointed after 18.9.72 will be from the date of their completion of training because according to Government notification no. 2709 dated 18.9.72 the minimum qualification for appointment as teachers in High School was trained graduate.” 22. However, the State of Bihar itself has issued a clarificatory letter being no. 658 dated 12.8.1993 with reference to the departmental letter no. 519 dated 2.7.1983 to the following effect: “Clause 1.-The calculation of service of any teacher/employee will be from the date when approval of the School (including partial and provisional) is given or has been taken over. In partially approved School there is a provision of only five teachers. 658 dated 12.8.1993 with reference to the departmental letter no. 519 dated 2.7.1983 to the following effect: “Clause 1.-The calculation of service of any teacher/employee will be from the date when approval of the School (including partial and provisional) is given or has been taken over. In partially approved School there is a provision of only five teachers. According to the date of approval/take over the date of appointment of all teachers/employees in concerned School will be the same. Thus, the seniority will be determined by the Establishment Committee of the said School on the basis of the date of their appointment in the said pay scale. In case of same previous date of appointment also on the basis of other principles for determining the seniority, position in gradation list will be determined. Clause 3- There were two posts of postgraduate trained teachers in every School. There is a provision in Government order no. 891 dated 24.3.67 that in absence of trained post-graduate teacher, untrained post-graduate teacher will be appointed. Thus, in gradation list these teachers will be shown senior to B.A. trained teacher." 23. However, it appears that prior there to the State itself had issued a circular letter bearing no. 2305 dated 25.7.1977, wherein it has been stated thus: “Clause 7-Basis of Seniority-In Non-Government Schools, the basis of seniority of teachers will be as follows: (Kha) If teaching experience is same, then determination of seniority will be on the basis of higher educational qualification of teacher concerned. (Ga) If teaching experience and qualification are same, then seniority will be determined according to the date of completion of training. 24. In terms of the aforementioned circular letter no. 2035 dated 25.7.1977, certainly the petitioner would rank senior inasmuch as she possess higher qualification. 25. On the date of take over of the said school admittedly the petitioner was a trained teacher. 26. Further even in terms of clause 3 of letter no. 958 dated 12.8.1993, it would be evident that nature of appointment, scale of pay and the qualification held by the concerned teachers would be the determining factor relating to seniority. 27. Even this Court in Mandal Kant Mishra vs. State of Bihar & ors reported in 1985 P.L.J.R. 107 has categorically held that the relevant circular for the purpose of determining inter seniority would be 1977 circular and not 1983 circular. 28. 27. Even this Court in Mandal Kant Mishra vs. State of Bihar & ors reported in 1985 P.L.J.R. 107 has categorically held that the relevant circular for the purpose of determining inter seniority would be 1977 circular and not 1983 circular. 28. In C.W.J.C. No. 4721 of 1987 (Hari Shankar Singh vs. State of Bihar) disposed of on 12.2.1988 this Court has again taken the same view. 29. In this view of the matter and further in view of the fact that final gradation list was published as far back as in the year 1985 and the petitioner having been allowed to hold the post of Head-mistress Incharge for such a long time, the impugned order could not have been passed. It is true, as has been observed by Respondent no. 2, in his impugned order that the question of seniority affects a person's whole career but it is also well settled that a seniority should not be disturbed after a long time. 30. It is now well known that if a person has been allowed to proceed on the basis that he or she would occupy a particular position in the gradation list, the same should be allowed to be changed except on very cogent reasons. 31. Further, in this case, in view of order passed by this-Court in C.W.J.C. No. 10013 of 1992 (Annexure-12), Respondent no. 2 himself having held that the gradation list was finally published as far back as in the year 1985, he should not have passed the order contrary thereto without arriving at a finding that the said gradation list in fact had attained finality. 32. For the reasons aforementioned, this application is allowed. The impugned order as contained in Annexures-19 and 20 to the writ application are quashed. However, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, there would be no order as to costs. Gurusharan Sharma, J. I agree. Application allowed.