Judgment Ravi S.Dhavan, J. 1. The Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the petitioner-appellant, Md. Kalim, on an order dated 25th April, 1995 in C.W.J.C. No. 11928of 1993, Md. Kalim V/s. State of Bihar and orders., 2. The contention of the appellant is that he is not aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Judge as a whole. It is explained to the Court that the judgment may have been good at the time when it was delivered and consequent upon several other workmen being regularised along with him he also has been regularised. This regularisation was the result of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 766 of 1991, Gauri Shankar Prasad and Ors. V/s. Bihar State Housing Board and Ors. The order of the Supreme Court is dated February, 13, 1991. 257 daily workers became entitled to be regularised in the work charge establishment in accordance with the chart which was placed before the supreme Court. 3. The contention on behalf of the petitioner-appellant is that Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 in the writ petition were appointed subsequently but were made senior to him in muster roll: In so far as Respondent No. 6 is concerned the Board-respondent acknowledged that his placement as senior above the petitioner was a mistake. The Court need not dwell on this aspect any further. 4. In so far as Respondent No. 7 is concerned it is on record that he was appointed in the year 1980. The petitioner was initially appointed in June, 1977 as a Helper to Electrician and subsequently on 25th May, 1979 as an Electrician. This record is compatible with the certificate that the petitioner received from the Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board, Patna describing him as an Electrician. This certificate is dated 16-12-1986, Annexure 2 series and the correspondence between office of the Board addressed to the Superintending Engineer dated 31st January, 1991 describing the petitioner-appellant, Md. Kalim, as an Electrician. 5. On behalf of the respondent-Board, it is explained, that the Supreme Court had indicated that the persons are to be regularised as they are. This is correct. In number, 257 persons on the muster roll were to be regularised. Thereafter, it was accepted that that persons who had been appointed would keep their seniority and consequently the status. The Respondent No. 7 admittedly was recruitted three years after the pettioner-appellant. This is correct. In number, 257 persons on the muster roll were to be regularised. Thereafter, it was accepted that that persons who had been appointed would keep their seniority and consequently the status. The Respondent No. 7 admittedly was recruitted three years after the pettioner-appellant. It will be a contradiction and hostile discrimination that a person recruitted three years subsequently receives a better status and seniority. In the circumstnaces, while Respondent No. 7 may remain an Electrician as a consequential benefit on the order of the Supreme Court, the petitioner-appellant being senior would receive the same designation. The Court has already pointed out from the record that in any case the petitioner-appellant though appointed as a Helper had been accepted on he muster roll and descrbed as an Electrician. His seniority be placed according to the date of his appointment. The desgination of an Electrician as has been described on record goes with it as he was already an Electrician in 1986. 6. The appeal succeeds.