Judgment R. M. Prasad, J. 1. The case of the petitioner is that he and respondent no.6 both were appointed as Junior Enginer (Civil in the Animal Husbandry, department on the same date. i. e.22-11-1985 which fact has however been disputed by the learned counsel for respondent No.6. services of both of them wete regularised under Bihar Ordinance No.32 of 1986 (Annexure 3 ). Further case of the petitioner is that on 19-7-1989, both namely, the petitioner as well as respondent No.6 were made Incharge Assistant engineer, 2. It is stated by Mr. Ram Balak Mahto, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that there are three posts of Assistant Engineer lying vacant in the Department, yet the Departmens has only forwarded the case of respondent No.6 for consideration of his case for promotion to one of the post of Assistant Engineer, to the B P. S C. vids letter No.211 dated 23-2-1995 It is also stated that as the petitioner could not get a copy of the said letter, the same has not been filed by him. 3. It appears that the seniority of the petitioner vis-a-vis respondent no. has not been finalished. A tentative gradation list has been circulated only on 2nd June, 1925, vide letter No.2621 inviting objection. Admittedly, the said gradation list has not yet been finalised in the Department. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submited that the petitioner as well as respondent No.6 having been appointed on the same date and the petitioner being senior in age would rank senior to respondent No.6. Further, learned counsel submits that the post in question is of the Assistant Enginear (Civil) and the petitioner holds qualification in Civil Engineering whereas respondent No.6 holds qualification in Tele-communication. Thus, according to him, from all angles petitioners case should have at least been forwarded by the Department for consideration along with respondent No 6. That having not been done, the respondents-authorities have acted arbitrarily and in utter violation of Articles 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution of India. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 seriously disputes about respective dates of appointment as Junior Engineer as well as the date of confirmation which, according to him is evident from the tentative seniority list. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 seriously disputes about respective dates of appointment as Junior Engineer as well as the date of confirmation which, according to him is evident from the tentative seniority list. He further submits that the post for which the case of respondent No.6 has been forwarded for consideration is the post of Assistant Engineer and not of the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. In the absence of any counter affidavit, learned G. P. VII is not in a position to say anything in regard to the above contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 7. Mr. Ghose, learned counsel appearing for the Bihar Public Service commission states that as he has also not received any instruction, he is not in a position to state anything about the same. 8. Having regard to the aforementioned facts and circumstances, I consider it expedent to dispose of the writ application with a direction to the Secretary, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department, Patna (respondent No.1) and the Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Patna (respondent No.3) to first finalise the seniority list before making any regular promotion to the said post. However, in case the said respondents find immediate necessity of filling up the said vacancy, then the case of the petitioner also be forwarded by them to the Bihar Public Service Commission for consideration of his case as well, along with the case of respondent No.6 for appointment on the aforementioned post of Assistant, Engineer, and unless his case is forwarded and considered along with the case of respondent no.6, on order notification of promotion filling up the said vacancy shall be issued. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ application is disposed of. Order accordingly,