Order These six Letters Patent Appeals arise out of separate judgment and order of a learned single Judge of this Court in two writ petitions involving the same controversy. The main judgment is the one passed in C.W.J.C. No. 7675 of 1994 giving rise to L.P.A. Nos. 115, 130 and 169 of 1996. The other writ petition (C.W.J.C. No. 10634 of 1994) has been disposed of in terms of the said judgment. 2. The dispute, which relates to inter-se seniority in Bihar Engineering Service Class-I and boils down to promotion to the post of Engineer-in- chief, has a long history. In 1983 a writ petition, C.W.J.C. No. 3941 of 1983, was filed on behalf of six members of the Bihar Engineering Service Class-I challenging different notifications whereby and whereunder Major Yogendra Narain Yadav, appellant in L.P.A. Nos. 115 and 151 of 1996, was treated as an appointee (to the Bihar Engineering Service Class-II) of the year 1963 and promoted as Superintending Engineer in Class-I directly from the post of Assistant Engineer. Major Yadav had joined the Indian Army on Short Service Commission in 1963. After his release from the Army in 1970 he took up a private job. He was appointed to Bihar Engineering Service Class-II as an Assistant Engineer in 1973. He later claimed seniority from the year of his appointment in the Army on the basis of the Circulars dated 12.6.67 and 21.6.69 which, inter alia, provided that the candidates appointed against the vacancy reserved for ex-army personnel shall be treated as belonging to the year in which he would have been appointed on attaining the minimum age of entry into the service/post or on the date of his joining in the military service whichever is later. The claim was allowed and he was given seniority of the year 1963. This Court held that as Major Yadav did not avail of the opportunity of appointment persuant to advertisement for the post of Assistant Engineer in the years 1971 and 1972, the benefit of service rendered by him in the Army should be reduced by at least two years and he should be allotted 1965 as the year of entry into the service. This Court further held that he was junior to the writ petitioners of that case and not entitled to Class-I post in the Bihar Engineering Service on the basis of his experience of the military service. This Court further held that he was junior to the writ petitioners of that case and not entitled to Class-I post in the Bihar Engineering Service on the basis of his experience of the military service. It was made clear in the judgment that while it is open to the State to give seniority to an appointee from the year of his appointment in the military service on a class II post in the Bihar Engineering Service, in view of the provisions of Rule 17 of the Bihar Engineering Service Class I Rules, promotion to the post of Executive Engineer and above (i.e. in Class I) can be considered only in terms of the said Rules. Merely on the basis of deemed completion of 8 years in Class-II service there cannot be any presumption that the appointee would enter into Class-I service. The date of entry in Class-I service has to be determined on the basis of the Rules. On these findings, inter alia, this Court by its judgment dated 17.12.90 directed the Government to constitute Departmental Promotion Committee (D.P.C.) to find out as to from which date Major Yadav should have been promoted to the post of Executive Engineer and thereafter to consider the promotion of all eligible candidates including writ petitioners and Major Yadav to the post of Superintending Engineer and above. 3. Both Major Yadav and the State of Bihar preferred appeals to the Supreme Court. While granting special leave in S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 1784 and 2615 of 1991 on 1.4.91, the Supreme Court reiterated that the DPC be constituted and decision be taken without delay subject to the result of the appeal. An interim order, however, was passed to the effect that until decision is taken by the DPC, he will not be reverted to the lower post. 4. On 9.8.91 the DPC considered the cases of the different persons and in the light of the finding of this Court concluded as regards Major Yadav that he was entitled to reckon seniority from 1965. The committee also made recommendations. The decision of the DPC was challanged by way of an interlocutory application in the Supreme Court which on 30.1.92 declined to pass any positive order but gave him the liberty to file a writ petition in the High Court, without going into the merit of the grievance. The committee also made recommendations. The decision of the DPC was challanged by way of an interlocutory application in the Supreme Court which on 30.1.92 declined to pass any positive order but gave him the liberty to file a writ petition in the High Court, without going into the merit of the grievance. Major Yadav than filed writ petition in this court being C.W.J.C. No. 1563 of 1992, which was disposed of on 13.12.92 with an observation that the grievance was premature inasmuch as no consequential notification had been issued by the State Government. 5. The writ petitioners of the connected cases filed C.W.J.C. No. 8341 of 1993 for direction to the State Government to implement the aforesaid decision of the D.P.C. The said writ petition alongwith a previous writ petition, C.W.J.C. No. 4500 of 1987 in which prayer had been made for quashing the seniority list of Superintending Engineers, was disposed of on 25.3.94. This Court disapproved the inaction on the part of the State Government in giving effect to the direction of this court as well as the Supreme Court. It took into account the fact that the recommendation of the DPC had been approved by the council of Ministers but still no rectification was issued because the Minister Incharge had set his foot down and seen to it that no notification is issued. It came to a categorical finding that Major Yadav had been shown undue favour by the State, which had gone out of way in not only withholding the implementation of its earlier decision but also posting him as Engineer-in-Chief in the meantime. This court, however, also took the view that the DPC while coming to its conclusion, vide Minutes dated 19.8.91 had considered only the inter-se seniority of the candidates and did not consider the inter-se merit. In that view of the matter the State Government was directed to refer the matter to the DPC for consideration of the cases of different candidates for promotion to the posts of Superintending Engineer, Chief Engineer and Engineer-in-Chief in terms of the judgment of this court in C.W.J.C. No. 3941 of 1983 as well as the orders of the Supreme Court in S.L.P. Nos. 1784 and 2615 of 1991, within one month. Major Yadav, in the facts of the case and in view of the findings, was restrained from functioning as Incharge Engineer-in-Chief. 6. 1784 and 2615 of 1991, within one month. Major Yadav, in the facts of the case and in view of the findings, was restrained from functioning as Incharge Engineer-in-Chief. 6. Major Yadav preferred S.L.P. (Civil) No. 6749 of 1994. While disposing of the S.L.P. on 8.4.94 the Supreme court observed that the direction of the High Court asking the re-constituted DPC to make selection within a time-frame does not call for any interference. It, however, set aside the other part of the order by which Major Yadav had been restrained from functioning as Engineer-in-Chief. As a result of the aforesaid order Major Yadav had been functioning on the post of Engineer-in-Chief throughout. 7. The re-constituted DPC which considered the cases of the different candidates in the light of the orders of this court and the Supreme Court this time, in its meeting held on 16.5.94, took a different decision not only on the question of promotion to the posts of Superintending Engineer, Chief Engineer and Engineer-in-Chief but also on the point of seniority. It took the view that Major Yadav is entitled to reckon his seniority from 1963 itself. C.W.J.C. No. 7675 of 1994 was filed in these circumstances challenging the recommendation of the DPC, decision of the State Government accepting the same and the consequential notification. 8. The learned Single Judge in his impugned judgment has found that in terms of the direction of this Court issued in C.W.J.C. No. 8341 of 1993 reiterated by the Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 6749 of 1994, the re-constituted DPC was to proceed further on the basis of the resolution dated 9.8.91 but the DPC in coming to its impugned conclusions not only reversed the earlier resolution dated 9.8.91 but also ignored the finding of this court and thus came to erroneous conclusion which amounted to circumventing the decision and findings of this court in the previous two writ petitions. The learned Single Judge has also expressed doubts as to whether the other respondents, namely, respondent nos. The learned Single Judge has also expressed doubts as to whether the other respondents, namely, respondent nos. 7, 8 and 9, having been promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer against reserved posts, could be considered senior to the writ petitioners, who were admittedly senior to them in service and had been promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Virpal Singh Chauhan (1995) 6 S.C.C. 684 . On these findings, inter alia, the learned Judge has quashed the recommendation of the DPC as well as the impugned notification and directed the State to refer the matter again to a validly constituted DPC within the period of one month to complete the process of selection as per the direction of this court in C.W.J.C. No. 3941 of 1983 as well as C.W.J.C. No. 8341 of 1993 starting from the point of selection as on 9.8.91 when the DPC had earlier taken the decision. 9. Mr. Gopal Subramanyam, learned counsel for Major Yadav, who made the leading, submissions on behalf of the appellants, contended that there is nothing in the judgment of this court in C.W.J.C. No. 8341 of 1993 to show that the finding of the DPC regarding seniority of Major Yadav was approved. He submitted that a direction to consider the inter-se merit of different candidates necessarily implies consideration of seniority as well. 10. We have very briefly noticed above the findings arrived at by this court in the earlier two writ petitions. As noticed above, this court in C.W.J.C. No. 3941 of 1983 had recorded a clear-cut finding that Major Yadav can at best be entitled to seniority from 1965. The said finding has not been upset or reversed by any competent court. We, therefore, find it difficult to accept the submission of the counsel in the facts of the present case that the DPC had any discretion to go into the question of his seniority and hold him to be an appointee of the year 1963. The said finding has not been upset or reversed by any competent court. We, therefore, find it difficult to accept the submission of the counsel in the facts of the present case that the DPC had any discretion to go into the question of his seniority and hold him to be an appointee of the year 1963. Prima facie it appears doubtful to us that by not availing of the chances/opportunities of appointment pursuant to the advertisements issued in both 1971 and 1972, Major Yadav could be held entitled to reckon his 'seniority even from 1965, particularly in view of the fact that after release from the Army in 1970 he was gainfully employed in private service until his appointment as Assistant Engineer in Bihar Engineering Service Class II in 1973. However, the finding recorded by this court entitling him to seniority from 'at least' 1965 does not appear to have been questioned by any person and it is, therefore, not appropriate for us to go into that question at this stage. In the facts of the case, we are fully satisfied that the direction of this court issued in C.W.J.C. No. 8341 of 1993, which was reiterated by the Supreme Court, was not given effect to by the DPC/State Government and they are duty bound to do so now pursuant to the judgments and order under appeal. 11. It is really unfortunate that the dispute challenging grant of certain service benefits to Major Yadav raised in 1983 has still not been resolved. We have referred to above the observation of this Court regarding giving undue favour to him. We share the feelings and apprehension expressed by the counsel for the writ petitioners in these cases that the whole attempt of the State Government was throughout been to see somehow that. Major Yadav continues on the post of the Engineer-in-Chief till his superannuation some time in the next year. The writ petitioners have already retired from service without having tasted the fruits of success of the ongoing litigation and it would be really unfortunate if Major Yadav and the State Government were to succeed in their attempt to circumvent the direction of this court in the manner it has been done so far. 12. We are in complete agreement with the findings of the learned Single Judge and the direction issued by him. 12. We are in complete agreement with the findings of the learned Single Judge and the direction issued by him. We would, accordingly, dismiss these appeals in limine.