Judgment S. J. Mukhopadhaya and j. JJ. 1. The petitioners have preferred the writ petition for direction on the Respondents not to give promotion to LA. trained scale of pay or B. A. trained scale of pay in the Basic Schools under the Kosi division, unless and until a final gradation list of matric trained teachers is prepared. 2. According to the Counsel for the petitioners, the respondents should prepare gradation list on the basis of positions of persons, as appearing in the merit list/panel, out of which initial appointment was made to the post of Assistant Teacher and not on the basis of joining of a person to such post. 3. The brief fact of the case shows that an advertisement was made on 7th august, 1988 for appointment to the post of Assistant Teachers in Basic schools, including the schools under the kosi Division. The petitioners along with others applied in pursuance of said advertisement and called for interview. The petitioners appeared in the interview held in October, 1989, whereinafter a merit list/panel of successful candidates were prepared. The respondents thereafter issued one order of appointment vide letter dated 7th february, 1991. By the said letter, a total of 136 persons, including the petitioners were appointed to the post of Assistant Teachers and were posted in different Basic Schools. On the basis of such appointment letters, the petitioners joined their respective schools on different dates and other persons who were also appointed by the said letter dated 7th February, 1991, they also joined their respective place of posting. 4. It is alleged that a tentative gradation list was initially issued on 18th February, 1992, in which the seniority was shown on the basis of date of joining, to which the petitioners objected. Subsequently, another tentative gradation list was published by the respondents on 12th December, 1995, which is also based on the date of joining of the persons in the schools, and not on the basis of the positions of the persons in the. merit list. It is alleged that the petitioners though filed representation against the gradation list dated 12th December, 1995, the respondents without finalising the gradation list were going to consider the cases of person who, according to the petitioners, are junior to them, for promotion to LA. merit list. It is alleged that the petitioners though filed representation against the gradation list dated 12th December, 1995, the respondents without finalising the gradation list were going to consider the cases of person who, according to the petitioners, are junior to them, for promotion to LA. trained scale of pay and B. A. trained scale of pay on the basis of the tentative gradation list dated 12th December, 1995. It is stated that during the pendency of the writ petition, by different orders, contained in Memo Nos.5023, 5024 and 5025, all dated 11th December, 1996, some of the persons have already been promoted to higher grades, after interim order which was passed by this court on 2nd December, 1996. 5. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No.2. In the said counter-affidavit, though details relating to mode of appointment of Assistant Teachers and the facts relating to appointment of the petitioners have been stated therein, but nothing has been stated with respect to preparation of the final gradation list. It has been stated that after receipt of objections, the matter was placed before the establishment Committee, wherein it has been decided to continue with the gradation list on the basis of joining of a person to the post of Assistant Teachers. 6. Having heard the Counsel for the parties, according to this Court, the respondents cannot decide the seniority of persons, appointed by way of direct recruitment out of a common competitive examination, on the basis of date of joining of person. It is a settled law that the date of joining of person is not dependent on any circumstances but is a fortitions circumstances, which depends on the order of posting of person at one or other place and is also dependent on the postal communication of orders of appointment, for which the incumbents are not at all responsible. For example, if a person whose name is appearing at serial No.1, is provided with an order of appointment and posting at a place which is far away from the place where such order of appointment was received by such person (at series No. l), the person will join the post after some delay to the other place. For example, if a person whose name is appearing at serial No.1, is provided with an order of appointment and posting at a place which is far away from the place where such order of appointment was received by such person (at series No. l), the person will join the post after some delay to the other place. On the other hand, even if name of the person, if appearing below in the merit list and is provided with the order of appointment on the same date, if received such appointment letter earlier and is being posted at nearer place, such person though lower in the merit list may join the post earlier. 7. For example, the petitioner No.5, to whom the order of appointment dated 7th February, 1991 was issued at his home address at Araria, was posted to a school at Bhima in the district of purnea. He received the order of appointment dated 7th February, 1991, registered on 8th February, 1991, and joined thereafter. On the other hand, another person, namely, one Abhay nath Mishra whose name has been shown below the names of the petitioners, as appeared, received the order of appointment on 7th February, 1991, i. e. date of the issuance of the order of appointment and joined the school, in question, on the same very date, i. e.7th February, 1991. 8. The aforesaid discussions have been made by me to show that the date of joining of person being a fortitious one have got no relevancy with determination of seniority, particularly when appointments are provided on the basis of a common merit list. Further, it is a settled law that if some persons are appointed in one transaction, in pursuance of one advertisement then the seniority is to be dependent on the basis of position of such persons, as appearing in the merit list. 9. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to finalise the gradation list of the post of Assistant Teachers of Basic school of Kosi Division immediately. They will not determine the seniority list on the basis of date of joining of a person, if appointed out of same transaction, in pursuance of a common advertisement. With respect to such persons, the seniority is to be decided on the basis of positions of persons, as was appearing in the merit list/panel, which was prepared at the time of their initial appointments. With respect to such persons, the seniority is to be decided on the basis of positions of persons, as was appearing in the merit list/panel, which was prepared at the time of their initial appointments. If some other persons, have been appointed in pursuance cf some other advertisement, in that case, the respondents will determine the seniority on the basis of the date of transactions of such appointment. Sets of such persons who were appointed earlier, will rank senior to sets of persons appointed later but amongst such sets of persons, the seniority is to be determined on the basis of their position in the merit list. Further, after such determination of seniority list, if it is found that the persons whose positions are below that of the positions of the petitioners in the merit list, which was prepared at the time of initial appointment of the petitioners and are thereby junior to the petitioners, have already been granted promotions to higher grades by different orders which were issued on 11th December, 1996, in that case, the respondents will also consider the cases of petitioners for promotion to such higher grade from the date the aforesaid juniors were so promoted, i. e. with effect from february, 1996. It is further ordered that, in the meantime, the respondents will not promote any person to the higher grade on the basis of the tentative gradation lists which were published in the year 1992 and 1995. 10. The order of this court is to be complied by the respondents within a total period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ-petition stands disposed of with the aforementioned observations and directions. Order Accordingly.