Judgment S. J. Mukhopadhya, J. 1. This letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the bihar State Text Book Publishing Corporation (for short the corporation and its Managing Director against the judgment dated 22nd August, 1989, passed in C. W. J. C. No.3997 of 1982. By the impugned judgment the learned single Judge has set aside the tentative gradation list dated 9th February, 1982 as well as the order dated 20th September, 1982, by which the 2nd to 5th respondents herein, were promoted to selection grade scale of Assistant with effect from 1-4-1981. 2. The main grievance of the appellants, against the impugned judgment, is that the ratio laid down by the learned Single Judge for determination of seniority of their employees is not in accordance with law and is violative of articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Further, according to the appellants, the learned Single Judge should not have interfered with the tentative gradation list, nor he should have interfered with one promotion order to selection grade scale, after about seven years of such issuance of order. 3. As the matter relates to dispute of seniority, vis-a-vis the Respondents herein, the relevant dates of appointment, promotion and the grade to which they were so promoted, are necessary to be taken into account, which are,as follows : the writ petition (firs; Respondent herein), B. D. Singh was appointed in the accounts Section of the Corporation. The 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents were also initially appointed in the Accounts Section of the said Corporation. On the other hand, the 5th Respondent was appointed in the Book Godown Section of the Corporation. The writ petition (B. D. Singh) holds the qualification of B. S. and was appointed as Junior Accounts Clerk on 16th July, 1967 in the then scale of Rs.105-155. He was not confirmed. Subsequently, the writ petitioner (B. D. Singh) was promoted to the next higher post of Store Keeper on 1st December, 1969 in the then scale of rs.150-200. His scale of pay was revised to Rs.284-372 as on 1st of August, 1973 subsequently, the writ petitioner (B. D. Singh) was promoted as Job Works Assistant on 1st December, 1976 in the then scale of Rs.296-460. The scale of pay was revised with effect from 22nd May, 1980 to the higher scale of Rs.348-570. The 2nd Respondent (Suresh Prasad verma) holds qualification of B. Com. The scale of pay was revised with effect from 22nd May, 1980 to the higher scale of Rs.348-570. The 2nd Respondent (Suresh Prasad verma) holds qualification of B. Com. (Hons.), M. Com. He was initially appointed as Junior Accountant on 1st march, 1973 in the then scale of Rs.150-200, which was revised to Rs.296-460. Subsequently, the 2nd Respondent (S. P. Verma) was provided with higher post of Senior Correspondent Assistant-cum-Accountant on 1st December, 1976 in the then scale of Rs.340-490, after downgrading the original scale of Rs.465-600. The scale of pay of 2nd Respondent (S. RVerma) was revised to Rs.348-570 on 22nd May, 1980. So far as the 3rd Respondent (Nand kishore) is concerned, he holds qualification of B. Com. He was also initially appointed as Junior Accountant in the year 1971, in the then scale of Rs.150- 200. He was provided with the replacement scale of Rs.296-460 on 2nd May, 1972. Subsequently, the 3rd Respondent was promoted as Senioraccountant Grade I on 1st December, 1976 in the then scale of rs.340-490 which was revised to Rs.348-570 with effect from 2nd May, 1980. It has already been stated that the 5th Respondent (S. K. Bhaskar) was appointed in the Book Godown Section of the Corporation. He was appointed as store Assistant on 1st July, 1972 in the then scale of Rs.105-155, which was revised to Rs.220-315. He was provided with rationalisedpay of Rs.260-408 on 22nd May, 1980, which was enhanced to rs.348-570 because of merger with effect from 1-4-1981. 4. While the writ petitioner and the aforesaid Respondents were performing their duties, appellant-Corporation came out with the notice dated 9th february, 1982, by which tentative gradation list of employees of the Corporation, excluding class-IV employees, was published. In the gradation list of accounts Section, the name of the writ petitioner and the 2nd to 4th Respondents were shown, whereas the name of the 5th Respondent was shown in the gradation list of Book Godown Section. It is stated that the writ petitioner objected against the tentative gradation list, but the Appellant-Corporation thereafter never came out with any final gradation list. Subsequently, the impugned order was issued on 20th September, 1982, by which the 2nd to 5th respondents were provided with selection grade scale of Assistants i. e. the scale of Rs.505-665 with effect from 1-4- 1981. Subsequently, the impugned order was issued on 20th September, 1982, by which the 2nd to 5th respondents were provided with selection grade scale of Assistants i. e. the scale of Rs.505-665 with effect from 1-4- 1981. The writ petitioner challenged the aforesaid tentative gradation list dated 9th February, 1982 and the order of promotion dated 20th September, 1982 by filing a writ petition bearing c. W. J. C. No.3997 of 1989. 5. It has not been made clear by the writ petitioner in the writ petition as to why the petitioner sat tight over the matter for about seven years. The matter relating to delay in filing the writ petition has not been discussed in detail by the learned Single Judge. It is also not clear from the pleadingof the parties as to whether there are separate cadres constituted for employees who belong to the Accounts Section and the other who belong to the Book Godown section. Further it is not clear from the pleading made in the writ petition as to whether the posts with the different nomenclatures like Job Works Assistant, Senior correspondences Assistant-cum-Accountant, Senior Accountant grade-I, Senior Accountant Grade-II and Store Assistant, belong to a combined cadre or not. 6. The counsel for the appellants, while stated that the cadre of the employees belonging to Accounts Section and the cadre of employees belonging to the Book Godown Section are separate, but no specific evidence to that effect was placed by him. 7. On the other hand, the counsel appearing onbehalf of the 1st Respondent (Writ petitioner) contended that the cadre of employees of Corporation was a combined one, for which he relied on the tentative gradation list. 8. Having hearing the parties and after going through the pleadings made by the parties, as well as the impugned judgment, I am of the view that in absence of creation of a separate cadre, it cannot be held that there are two separate cadres with respect to the employees of the Corporation postedin one or other sections. It will be further evident from the tentative gradation list that the said list contains the names of such persons, who are in the grade of rs.348-570. Thereby, it is clear that the impugned gradation list is with respect to such employees who were in the grade of Rs.348-570, irrespective of different nomenclatures of their posts. 9. It will be further evident from the tentative gradation list that the said list contains the names of such persons, who are in the grade of rs.348-570. Thereby, it is clear that the impugned gradation list is with respect to such employees who were in the grade of Rs.348-570, irrespective of different nomenclatures of their posts. 9. So far as seniority is concerned, as the impugned seniority list is with respect to the persons who were in the grade of Rs.348-570 (unrevised pay of rs.296-460), the relevant criteria for determination of seniority is the date on which a person entered the said grade of Rs.348-580 (unrevised old scale of Rs.296- 560 ). It is to be taken into note that there is no separate rule/guideline relating to seniority framed by the Corporation. In absence of such rule or guideline, the date of entry in the particular grade/cadre (Rs.348-570 herein) is the relevant criteria for determination of such seniority. 10. Admittedly, the writ petition (B. D. Singh) entered in the grade of Rs.348-570 (old scale of Rs.296-460) on 1st December, 1976. The 2nd Respondent (S. P. Verma), on the other hand, entered the said grade (old scale of Rs.296-460), as on 1st of August, 1973. Thereby the 2nd Respondent (S. P. Verma) having entered the said grade of Rs.296-460 (old scale) revised to Rs.348-570, much prior to the writ petitioner (B. D. Singh), the said 2nd respondent (S. P. Verma) will rank senior to the writ petitioner. Similarly, the 3rd Respondent (Nand Kishore)and the 4th Respondent (Y. N. Jha)Having entered the said grade of Rs.296- 460 (old scale), revised to Rs.348-570, on 2nd May, 1972 and 1st of august, 1976 respectively, the said 3rd and 4th Respondents are also senior to the writ petitioner (B. D. Singh), who entered the said grade later, on 1st december, 1976. However, as the 5th respondent (S. K. Bhaskar) has been provided with the said grade of Rs.348-570, because of merger, on 1st of April, 1981, which is muck later than the date of entry of writ petitioner (B. D. Singh)to the said grade (1st December, 1976), the 5th Respondent (S. K. Bhaskar) cannot be declared to be senior to the writ petitioner (B. D. singh ). It is for the said reason, I held that the petitioner (B. D. Singh) is senior to the 5th Respondent (S. K. Bhaskar ). 11. It is for the said reason, I held that the petitioner (B. D. Singh) is senior to the 5th Respondent (S. K. Bhaskar ). 11. As it is a settled principle/law that the seniority in a particular grade, in absence of any specific rule/guideline relating to seniority, is dependent upon the date of entry in the said grade/cadre, i hold that earlier date of initial appointment to lower grade/grades has got no nexus, for the purpose of determination of seniority in the higher grade, except where the date of entry in the higher grade is the same. It is for the said reason, I hold that the ratio laid down by the learned Single Judge that the date of initial appointment in the corporation will be the criteria for determination of seniority as completely against the law, the same being violalive of Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution of India. The judgment, to that effect, is accordingly, set aside. 12. So far as the tentative gradation lsit dated 9th February, 1982 is concerned, according to me, the learned single Judge should not have interfere with the same in the writ petition, without directing the authorities of the corporation to finalise the same after going through the representation, if any, filed by any person. Further, as the writ petition was filed by the writ petitioner (B. D. Singh) against the impugned order of promotion dated 20th September, 1982, after delay of about seven years, in absence of specific plausible ground, the learned Single Judge should not have interfered with the same after such delay of seven years. It is for the said reason also the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be upheld in the eye of law. However, taking into account that the writ petition is senior to the 5th respondent (S. K. Bhaskar), it is declared that the writ petitioner (B. D. Singh) is also entitled for such benefit as has been provided o the 5th Respondent (S. K. Bhaskar ). He (S. K. Bhaskar)having been provided with selection grade scale of Rs.505-665 with effect from 1-4-1981, I hold that the writ petitioner (B. D. Singh) is also entitled for consideration of his case for such promotion with effect from the said retrospective date of 1st April, 1981. He (S. K. Bhaskar)having been provided with selection grade scale of Rs.505-665 with effect from 1-4-1981, I hold that the writ petitioner (B. D. Singh) is also entitled for consideration of his case for such promotion with effect from the said retrospective date of 1st April, 1981. It is for the said reason, I direct the authorities of the Corporation (including appellants herein) to consider the case of the writ petitioner (B. D. Singh) for promotion to selection grade scale of Assistant i. e. in the then scale of Rs.505-665 with effect from 1-4-1981 and if he is found fit for such promotion, to provide the writ petitioner (B. D. Singh) with consequential benefit of the same, including the arrears of salary thereto. 13. Accordingly, the Letters Patent appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 22nd August, 1989, passed in C. W. J. C. No.3997 of 1982 is set aside. 14. The writ petition aforesaid is dismissed as against the Respondents, namely, Suresh Prasad Verma, Nand kishore and Y. N. Jha. However, the writ petition is allowed to the extent, as stated above, with the direction, as given in the preceding paragraph. In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order, as to costs. Order Accordingly