Judgment Radha Mohan Prasad. J. 1. With the consent of the parties, this application has been admitted and is being disposed of finally. 2. In the present case, the petitioners have challenged the seniority list, as contained in Annexure 12, on the sole ground that the principle followed in fixing inter se seniority of the officers, who were initially recruited as district Engineers under the Rural Engineering Organisation but were brought in the common cadre of Executive Engineer in the Public Works Department by virtue of amalgamation of cadres, vide Annexure 1, is arbitrary add violative of Articles 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution of India. 3. In short, the releyent facts are that initially the petitioners were appointed in the Bihar Engineering Service Class-II of the State Government whereas the respondents 7 to 15 were appointed is District Engineers in the rural Engineering Organisation under Rural Development Department of the Government of Bihar. The cadre of the Bihar Engineering Service was distinct from the cadre of the District Engineers appointed in the Rural and development Department. The State Government, vide its decision contained in memo No.3226 dated 18th February, 1977, took a decision to amalgamate the cadre of the District Engineers with the parallel cadre of executive Engineers of Public Works Department, vide Annexure 1. The said decision was taken by the State Government in the public interest. Thereafter, the seniority list of the amalgamated cadre was notified by the road Constructions Department, vide notification No.6541 (S)dated 11-12-1992, in which the date of initial appointment in the respective grades of the officers in the District Engineering cadre as well as the Public Works Department cadre has been made the basis for fixation of seniority. 4. Mr. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the validity of the merger of the two cadre which was challenged in this Court was affirmed and later the Supreme Court also in the case of Vinay Kumar verma and Ors. V/s. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 1990 (2) PLJR (S. C.)17 held the amalgamation to be valid. Mr. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the validity of the merger of the two cadre which was challenged in this Court was affirmed and later the Supreme Court also in the case of Vinay Kumar verma and Ors. V/s. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 1990 (2) PLJR (S. C.)17 held the amalgamation to be valid. Learned counsel submitted that in paragraph 13 of the judgment in the case of Vinay Kumar Verma V/s. State of bihar (supra), the Supreme Court, while approving the merger of the cadre, found that the conditions of service of the existing members of service are not being altered or effected to their prejudice in any manner. Thus, it was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the spirit of the judgment of the Supreme Court was that the seniority of the District Engineers was to be counted from the date they were brought in the merged cadre. In this connection learned counsel. also placed reliance on Rule 27 of the Bihar engineering Service Class-I Rule, 1939. It was submitted by the learned counsel that the post of Executive Engineer is in the Bihar Engineer in Service class-I and under the aforesaid Rule 27 of the senority has to be reckoned with reference to the date of substantive appointment in the cadre in the service According to the learned counsel, as the petitioners can in service only after the merger, they would be deemed to have been substantively appointed in the service with effect from the date of merger, i. e. , in year 1977, and their past services as District Engineers old not have been taken into account for deteraining inter se seniority in the merged carde. 5. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel submitted that the seniority in the merged can, has been fixed in the light of the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Nirmal Kumar Choudhary and others v State of Bihar and others reported in AIR 1988 Supreme Court 394 which was also a case of merger of the three cadres and the Supreme Court held that the seniority in the merged cadre is to be reckoned with effect from the date of initial appointment. The lengh of service has been held to be the test for fixation of seniority in the combined gradation list in the absence of any rule. 6. Here, I would like to refer to a Government executive instruction issued by the State Government as contained in Government of Bihar, department of personnel letter No.3/ri-105/72-p-15784 dated 26th August, 1971 wherein the general principles and procedure of fixation of inter se seniority in service order have been laid down. According to the principle laid down therein in the event of amalgamation of cadres, seniority is determined with reference to the date of appointment in the particular grade on substantive or continuous officiating basis, whichever is earlier except that in the case of inter se seniority of incumbents in any group of posts as amongst themselves is not be disturbed in the procers of amalgamation. Further, in sub-clause (iii) of clause (c) of paragraph 3, it has been laid down that where an incumbent is transferred from one service to another on his own request, services rendered by him in the previous posts shall not count for seniority. But in case such transfer follows a policy decision taken by Government, his service in the previous post shall count for seniority, 7. It is true that according to the provisions contained in the P. W. D. Code the seniority of the officers in the Bihar Engineering Service Class-I has to be reckoned with reference to the date of their substantive appointment in the cadre but there being no rule relating to fixation of seniority in the merged cadre, the Government can supplement it by issuing executive instructions which has been done in so far as the Bihar Government is concerned bv issuing aforementioned executive instructions on 26th August, 1972. In any view of the matter, even according to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Nirmal Kumar V/s. State of Bihar, (supra), in the absence of rules, the more equitable way of preparing the combined gradation list would be to take the total length of service in the common grade as the basis for determinining the inter se seniority and, in the instant case, it is not in dispute that after both, namely. Executive Engineer and District Engineer, were brought under the common grade the seniority has been recked with reference to the total length of service of the two sets of Engineers. Executive Engineer and District Engineer, were brought under the common grade the seniority has been recked with reference to the total length of service of the two sets of Engineers. 8. In that view of the matter, I do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Panday that the seniority cf the District Engineers in the merged cadre has to be reckoned with reference to their date of entry in the cadre by virtue of amalgamation of the two cadres. 9. As no other point has been raised, in the present case, to challenge the seniority list, I do not find any merit in the writ application and it is, accordingly, dismissed but without costs. Writ Dismissed.