Judgment B. P. Singh, J. 1. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the notification dated 22-6-1985 (Annexure-9) whereby respondent No.4 has been deemed to have been appointed as District Engineer with effect from 1st February, 1967, the date on which he attained the age of 25 years, which was the minimum age prescribed for appointment as District Engineer Respondent No.4 has been granted consequential benefit of seniority. This has been done pursuant to the Government decision dated 21-6-1969, whereby certain concessions were granted to Short Service Commissioned and Emergency Co mmissioned officers, who had served the Indian Army after 1st February, 1962, and who were released according to a phased progtament or on the expiry of the tenure of their service in the Indian Army. The petitioner claims that his case should be considered on the basis of sentority-cum-merit for appointment as Chief Engineer in the Road Construction Department of the Government of Bihar. Admittedly, the petitioner as well as respondent No.4 were appointed as District Engineer on the same date i. e. , on 23-3-1973 pursuant to their selection for appointment by the Bihar Public Service Commission. In order of merit, the dame of the petitioner was shown at serial No 2, whereas respondent No.4 was shown at serial No 3. It is not disputed that if the position in the merits list was to determine the seniority inter se of the petitioner and respondent No.4, the petitioner would rank senior to respondent no.4. The question is whether the benefit of seniority given to respondent no.4 pursuant to the Government decision contained in letter No.8772 dated 21-6-1969 is legal and proper. 2. I shall first notice the factual background in which this controversy arises. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Engineer in the Public works Department of the Government of Bihar in the year 1962. His record of service shows that the petitioner possesss abilities above average. Apart from the fact that the petitioner had a brilliant academic career, he was also awarded National Research Council Scholorship of Canada twice in the year 1965 and 1969. He was awarded M. Sc. (Engineering) Degree by the university of Calgary, Canada for original research for professional proficiency. The research papers of the petitioner were published in the journals published by the American Concerete Institute. He was awarded M. Sc. (Engineering) Degree by the university of Calgary, Canada for original research for professional proficiency. The research papers of the petitioner were published in the journals published by the American Concerete Institute. USA, and the thesis petitioner was also purchased by the British Library, U. K. in the year 1986. 3. As earlier noticed, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant engineer in the Public Works Department of the Government of Bihar in the year 1962. He continued to work as an Assistant Engineer, till he was selected for appointment as District Engineer on 23rd March, 1973. Apart from the petitioner, two other persons were also appointed District Engineer by the same order Respondent No 5 was placed number one in order of merit, whereas the petitioner was placed at serial No, 2 and respondent No 4 at serial No 3. It is also not disputed that respondent No.4 was appointed against the post reserved for Engineers released by the Indian Army. After their appointment, all the three District Engineers were confirmed. On 18-2-1977 the cadre of District Engineer and the Executive Engineer, P. W. D. were merged. It was only thereafter on 18-5-1977 that respondent No.4 represented his case before the Government for grant of seniority on the basis of the Government decision contained in paragraph No.8 (a) of letter no.8772 dated 21-6-1969. The said letter has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The Rural Development after consultation with the appointment Department rejected the representation of respondent No.4 by order dated 4-8-1977 (Annexure-4 ). This led to file a writ petition before this Court, being C. W. J. C. No.1937 of 1978. The order rejecting the representation of being a non-speaking order, this Court was pleased to allow the writ petition and remanded back the case for a fresh decision on the question of seniority in accordance with law, after affording to the parties concerned an opportunity of hearing. After the writ petition was allowed by this Court, a notice was issued to the petitioner, and he filed his written objections to the grant of seniority to respondent No.4, as claimed by him. Ultimately. the impuged notification (Annexure-9) was issued on 24-6-1985. After the writ petition was allowed by this Court, a notice was issued to the petitioner, and he filed his written objections to the grant of seniority to respondent No.4, as claimed by him. Ultimately. the impuged notification (Annexure-9) was issued on 24-6-1985. By the said notification it was declared that respondent No 4, who has joined military service on 20th July.1964, and who had attained the age of 25 on 1-2-1967, which was the minimum age for appointment as District Engineer, and who was appointed against the post reserved for Engineers released from military service, and who had been appointed as District Engineer-vide notification No.1383 dated 14-3-1973, shall be deemed to have been appointed as District Engineer on 1-2-1967 in terms of the Government decision contained in paragraph No.8 of letter No.8772 dated 21-6-1969. His seniority was determined accordingly, Since the cadre of District Engineer was merged with the cadre of Executive Engineer in the Public Works Department, his seniority in the merged cadre shall be determined on the same basis, and respondent No.4 shall be entitled to all other benefits to which he was entitled under the aforesaid memorandum dated 21-6-1969. 4. So far as respondent no.4 is concerned, it is not in dispute that he possesses a degree in Engineering, and had applied for Short Service commission in the Indian Admy. He was called for training on 20th July, 1964, and was ultimately granted Short Service Commission in the Indian army on 14-2-1965. Thereafter, he served Indian Army and ultimately released from Army Service on 14-5-1970. On 23-6-1973 he was appointed as Engineer Assistant, and worked as such till 23-3-1973, when he was selected for appointment as District Engineer along with the petitioner. It may be noticed that the post of Engineer Assistant existed for some time, and has. thereafter been abolhed. The said post of Engineer Assistant was class iii non-gazetted post at the relevant time. 5. The core question, therefore, is whether in view of the military service rendered by respondent No.4, he is entitled to the benefit conferred by memorandum No.8772 dated 21 6-69 issued by the Appointment Department of the Government of Bihar. 6. It ii well-known that this country faced a serious threat of external aggression in the year 1962 and again in the year 1965. 6. It ii well-known that this country faced a serious threat of external aggression in the year 1962 and again in the year 1965. With a view to meet the emergency situaton created by such aggression, the country required large number of army officers including Engineers and Doctors to meet the challenge faced by the country. It was in this context that many persons were recruited to the Indian Army as Emergency Commissioned officers or Short Service Commissioned Officers. In recognition of the meritorious and selfless service rendered by persons, who were under no obligation to render military service, the Government decided to grant them certain concessions in the matter of civil employment. The matter was considered fay the Government, and concessions were granted to two categories of persons, namely (a) persons were already in the State service and joined the military service on deputation, and who came back after release from the Army, and (b) persons who joined military service from the open market and were released from military service completing the Short service Commission. By its decision contained in Memorandum dated 12th july.1967 (Annexure-5) certain concessions were given to the first category of Government servants who had opted for military service. That is not relevant in the instant case. What is relevant is the concession granted to persons belonging to the second category, namely, the Engineers and Doctors, who joined Emergensy commission and Short Service Commission directly, and who were released from military service after completing the Commission. It was decided that 50 percent of the permanent vacancies which occur as a result of retirement and other casualties for the permanent cadre of Class I and Class II State Engineering and Medical Service should be reserved for ex-Army Personnel having to their credit satisfactory military service, and who were found physically fit for appointment against reserved vacancies. It was also decided that for the purpose of fixation of pay and seniority such a candidate shall be deemed to have been appointed to the civil post on the date on which he joined the military service, provided that no officer was to get advantage in matter of seniority and pay fixation for the peroid of military service rendered by him before 1-11-1962. 7. Another Memorandum No.8772 dated 21-6-1969 was issued by the government of Bihar, which slightly modified the earlier Memorandum. 7. Another Memorandum No.8772 dated 21-6-1969 was issued by the government of Bihar, which slightly modified the earlier Memorandum. The Memorandum dated 21-6-1969 is Annexure-3 to the writ petition. From a perusal of Annexure-3 it appears that the Government realised that Ex-Armymen of Engineering and Medical Corps were not being absorbed in civil posts because very few vacancies, if at all, occurred in permanent cadre. By and large recruitments were made on temporary basis, and no reservation was provided for against temporary posts. The Government, therefore, decided that in the Engineering and Medical Services also 30 percent of the vacancies, both permanent and temporay, instead of permanent vacancies only, should be reserved for those Engineers and Doctors who had joined the armed forces from the open market during the last emergency and thereafter released. It may be worth noticing that the reservation of posts was only in Class I and class II Engineer in and Medical Service for graduate Engineers and Doctors, who took up military service during the emergency. It is not necessary to refer to other paragraphs of the Memorandum, but paragraph No 8 thereof is most significant. It reads as follows ; "seniority and pav of these candidates who are appointed against the reserved vacancies will be determined in the following manner : - (a; A candidate shall be treated as belonging to the year in which he would have been appointed on attaining the minimum age of entry into service post concerned or on the date of his joining military service, which ever is leter. (b) All such candidates shall rank below the non-service recruits of the year in which they are alloted. (c) The Particular date on which a candidate should be deemed to have been appointed to the service post concerned shall be decided by the Administrative Department. " 8. (b) All such candidates shall rank below the non-service recruits of the year in which they are alloted. (c) The Particular date on which a candidate should be deemed to have been appointed to the service post concerned shall be decided by the Administrative Department. " 8. A mere perusal of the paragraph quoted above leaves no manner of doubt that as a special concession to ex-army officers, who were released from the army a benefit was sought to be conferred, whereby on appointment against a civil post he was treated as having been appointed in the year in which he would have been appointed on attaining the minimum age of entry into the service post concerned, or on the date of his joining military service, whichever is later However, he would rank below the non-service recruits of the year in which he was allotted. This was in slight modification of the earlier Memorandum (Annexure-5), which provided that such a candidate shall be deemed to have been appointed to the civil post on the date on which he joined military service on or after 1-2-1962. 9. The case of respondent No.4 has been considered in the light of paragraph No.8 of the Government decision, as contained in Annexure-3 dated 21-6-1969, In may view, no error has been committed by the Government in giving to respondent No.4 the benefit of deeming him to have been appointed District Engineer on 1-2-1967, the date on which he attained the age of 25, which was the minimum age for appointment as District Engineer. As earlier noticed respondent No.4 was granted Short Service Commission, on 14-2-1965 In accordance with the earlier Memoraudum (Annexure-5)he could be deemed to have been appointed on 14-2-1965 as District Engineer, but since that was modified by Memorandum (Annexure-3) dated 21-6-1969, he was deemed to have been appointed District Engineer on the date when he attained the qualifying age for entry into service, namely, 25 years. It is not in dispute that respondent No 4 attained the age of 25 years on 1-2-1967. It is not in dispute that respondent No 4 attained the age of 25 years on 1-2-1967. If that be so, in terms of paragrph No 8 of the Government Memorandum, he was rightly treated as having been appointed as District Engineer on 1-2-1967, The benefit of the aforesaid Memoradum was available only to respondent No 4, and by reason, of the concession granted to him he was deemed to have been appointed as District Engineer on 1-2-1967. The petitioner, on the other band, joined the post of District Engineer on 23rd march, 1973 Obviously, therefore, he became junior to respondent No.4 by reason of concession conferred upon the latter under Annexure-3. The petitioner, therefore, has no justifiable ground to challenge the seniority conferred on respondent No.4. 10. The petitioner submitted that it was necessary for a person to have five years experience "of working in the Public Works Department or district Board in connection with the construction work before he could be appointed as District Engineer. On 1-2-1967 the petitioner did not have the requisite experience and, therefore, he could not be deemed to have been appointed as District Engineer on that date. The submission overlooks the fact that respondent No 4 was actually appointed as District Engineer in march 1973. He had rendered service as Engineer in the Indian Army on short Service Commission from 14-2-1965 till 14-5-1970 i e , for a period over five years. That was considered to be adequate experience for appointment as District Engineer. In view of the decision of the Government, as contained in Annexure-3, he has been given the benefit of seniority treating him as having been appointed on 1-2-1967. This concession has been given to respondent No.4 in recognition of special services rendered by him as an army officer at the time of peril There is, therefore, no illegality in the grant of such concession to respondent No.4. 11. The petitioner also contended that the impugned order was passed by the Department of Road Construction, whereas the parent Department of the petitioner was the Rural Development Department. This submission has no force. It is true that earlier the parent Department of the petitioner was the Rural Development Department, but at the time when Annexure-9 was issued, the Rural Engineering Organisation was under the control of the Road construction Department. This submission has no force. It is true that earlier the parent Department of the petitioner was the Rural Development Department, but at the time when Annexure-9 was issued, the Rural Engineering Organisation was under the control of the Road construction Department. Obviously, therefore, the notification was issued by that Department It appears that later the Organisation was again under the control of Rural Development Department, but that is not very material. 12. It is not disputed that the petitioner had submitted bis objections in writing to the grant of seniorty to respondent No.4 under Memorandum dated 21-6-1969 (Annexure-3 ). It cannot, therefore, be contended that the decision was taken in violation of the principles of natural justice. 13. Having considered all aspects of the matter, I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the impugned notification (Annexure-9)dated 24-6-1985 cannot be assailed The decision has been taken perfectly in accordance with the decision of the Government, as contained in paragraph no.8 (a) of Memorandum No 8772 dated 21-6-1969 The decision of the Government contained in the aforesaid Memorandum is a valid decision, which has not been assailed by any one before this Court, obviously because it sought to grant certain concessions to persons, who had rendered valuable military service when the country faced external aggression. 14. This writ petition has, therefore, no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed, but without as to costs. Writ Dismissed.