Judgment Chandramauli Kr.Prasad, J. 1. This application has been filed for quashing the communication dated 5.9.2000 (Annexure- 21) whereby while deciding the inter se seniority, petitioner has been shown junior to respondent no. 8. Further prayer made by the petitioner is to quash the order dated 1.9.2000 (Annexure-22) whereby respondent no, 9 has been granted regular promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts giving rise to the present application are that by order dated 23.7.1981, petitioner, respondent no. 8 and other persons were appointed as Junior Engineers on a consolidated salary of Rs. 299 p.m. In the said order, name of the petitioner is at serial no. 2 whereas that of respondent no. 8 is at serial no. 8. By the said order, all the appointees were directed to submit their joining within a week. In pursuance of the said order, petitioner joined his duty as Junior Engineer on 1.8.1981 whereas respondent no. 8 joined on 5.8.1981. It seems that for the regular appointment to the post of Junior Engineer and grant of regular scale of pay, an agenda was prepared for consideration of the Standing Committee of the Patna Municipal Corporation, hereinafter referred to as the Corporation to be held on 10.8.1984. In the said agenda note, the names of the Junior Engineers working from before on consolidated salary including the petitioner and respondent no. 8, were placed and the agenda note indicated petitioner as senior to respondent no. 8. The said agenda note was approved and by order dated 11th of January, 1985, petitioner as also respondent no. 8 were appointed as Junior Engineers on ad hoc basis for a period of one year from 10.8.1984 in anticipation of the approval of the Bihar Public Commission, hereinafter referred to as the Commission. In this order also, name of petitioner was shown at serial no. 1 whereas that of respondent no. 8 is at serial no. 3. Petitioner as also respondent no. 8 continued to work as Junior Engineers and the respondent Corporation published a seniority list dated 8.7. (992 (Annexure-5) showing the petitioner at serial no. 1 and that of respondent no. 8 at serial no. 2. Lateron, by order dated 23rd of September, 1994 (Annexure-7), petitioner as also respondent no. 8 were asked to perform the work of Assistant Engineers in addition to their own work. (992 (Annexure-5) showing the petitioner at serial no. 1 and that of respondent no. 8 at serial no. 2. Lateron, by order dated 23rd of September, 1994 (Annexure-7), petitioner as also respondent no. 8 were asked to perform the work of Assistant Engineers in addition to their own work. Further, by order dated 15.6.1995, petitioner as also respondent no. 8 were promoted as Assistant Engineers in anticipation of the approval of the Commission. Lateron, by order dated 19.8.1995, respondent no. 8 was reverted to the post of junior Engineer. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred C.W.J.C. No. 8129 of 1995 (Ravindra Kumar Verma V/s. The State of Bihar & Ors.) before this Court and this Court, by order dated 27.2.1997 (Annexure-11) disposed of the writ application with the following direction : "7. Be that as it may, since no regular promotion can be granted until concurrence of the Commission, it would be difficult for this Court at this stage to direct the authorities to promote the petitioner on regular basis. But since respondents themselves had taken steps for obtaining concurrence of the Commission, I would direct the respondent Administrator to get the matter finalised so that after obtaining concurrence of the Commission, the petitioner can be considered for promotion. 8. But before parting with this order, I also feel inclined to direct the respondents that in case it is considered desirable to appoint any person on officiating basis, then seniority of such person must be maintained. Therefore, the respondents shall consider whether Vijay Kumar was entitled to such officiating promotion or the petitioner. Final steps in compliance of this order must be taken positively within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order." 3. Purportedly following the direction of this Court, the name of respondent no. 8 was sent to the Commission for its concurrence and appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer and on receipt of the concurrence of the Commission, the respondent Corporation issued order dated 12.9.1998 giving promotion to respondent no. 8 to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil). Petitioner, being aggrieved by the same, preferred C.W.J.C. 8577 of 1998 (Vijay Kumar V/s. The State of Bihar & Ors.) before this Court, inter alia, contending that he is senior to respondent no. 8 and as such, his promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer in preference to the petitioner, is illegal. 8 to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil). Petitioner, being aggrieved by the same, preferred C.W.J.C. 8577 of 1998 (Vijay Kumar V/s. The State of Bihar & Ors.) before this Court, inter alia, contending that he is senior to respondent no. 8 and as such, his promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer in preference to the petitioner, is illegal. While disposing of the said writ application, by order dated 7.12.1999 (Annexure-1), this Court took note of the fact that before changing the seniority position, petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing. Accordingly, this court set aside the order dated 12.3.1998 promoting respondent no. 8 as Assistant Engineer. While doing so, this Court observed as follows : "In the aforesaid facts and circumstances i find it difficult to sustain the impugned order of promotion of respondent no. 8. The office order, dated 12.9.1998 as contained in Annexure-14 is accordingly set aside. Following this, the Administrator, Patna Municipal Corporation is directed to determine afresh the question of seniority between the petitioner and respondent no. 8 after giving them due notice and opportunity of hearing. On the basis of the decision on the question of seniority, names would be sent to the Bihar Public Service Commission for its concurrence for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil). Names would be sent in sufficient numbers having regard to the vacancies available for promotion." 4. Respondent no. 8 aggrieved by the same, preferred L.P.A. No. 1623 of 1999 (Ravindra Kumar Verma V/s. Vijay Kumar & Ors.) before this Court. The appeal preferred by respondent no. 8 was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 5.9.2000 (Annexure-L) in the following words : We fully agree with the view taken by the (earned Single Judge that as there was controversy with regard to seniority between them and the matter had even come earlier to this court, it was necessary for the Administrator of the Corporation to have decided the question of seniority after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Admittedly the writ petitioner-respondent was not heard before determining the question of seniority and as such the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not require any interference by this court. Admittedly the writ petitioner-respondent was not heard before determining the question of seniority and as such the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not require any interference by this court. In terms of the direction issued by the learned Single Judge, if the Administrator of the Corporation has not decided the matter, already, then he is directed to decide the question of seniority between the appellant and the writ petitioner-respondent within a period of two months from the date of their appearance before him and for that purpose both the parties are directed to appear before the administrator on 18.9.2000, who will fix a firm date and, thereafter, he will dispose of the matter within the aforesaid period." 5. However, before disposal of L.P.A. No. 1623 of 1999 by order 15.9.2000, the Administrator of the respondent Corporation, in the light of the order of this Court dated 7.12.1999 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 8577 of 1998, directed the petitioner as also respondent no. 8 to submit the records and evidence in support of their claim in regard to the seniority. Petitioner submitted his reply and by the impugned order dated 5.9.2000, the Administrator determined their inter se seniority and found respondent no. 8 senior to the petitioner. While holding respondent no. 8 senior to the petitioner, the Administrator had taken into consideration the fact that the date of appointment and educational qualification of both of them being same, the inter se seniority has to be decided on the basis of circular No. 15784 dated 26.8.1972 of the Personnel and Administrative Department which inter alia, provides that seniority in such circumstances has to be decided on the basis of age. 6. It is common ground that the Administrator, before deciding the inter se seniority although had given opportunity to the petitioner and respondent no. 8 to submit records in respect to their claim for seniority, but oral hearing was not given. It is the stand of the petitioner that in view of the order of this Court, the Administrator was obliged to provide the petitioner oral hearing before determining the seniority. 7. 8 to submit records in respect to their claim for seniority, but oral hearing was not given. It is the stand of the petitioner that in view of the order of this Court, the Administrator was obliged to provide the petitioner oral hearing before determining the seniority. 7. Petitioner has further challenged the validity of the impugned orders on the ground that the Administrator has passed the orders on 5th of September, 2000 and 11th of September, 2000 after he ceased to be the Administrator of the Corporation having joined the post of the District Magistrate-cum-Collector on 5th of September, 2000. 8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner joined as Junior Engineer on 1.8.1981 whereas respondent no. 8 joined the said post on 5.8.1981. 9. Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioners date of entry as Junior Engineer being earlier to respondent no. 8, petitioner is senior and the decision to the contrary is illegal. In support of this submission, reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in the case of Sri Kapildeo Prasad & Anr. V/s. The State of Bihar & Ors., 2001 (1) B.B.C.J. 485 and my attention has been drawn to the following passage from the said judgment : "18. Thus, the petitioners position in the merit list being above the contesting Respondents 3 to 14, the fact having not denied by the Respondents, I hold the petitioners senior to contesting Respondents 3 to 14." 10. Mr. Narendra Prasad, Senior Advocate, however, appearing on behalf of respondent no. 8 submits that while appointing the petitioner as also respondent no. 8 to the post of Junior Engineer on ad hoc basis on a consolidated salary of Rs. 299/- p.m., they were given one weeks time to submit their joining. Hence, Petitioner cannot rank senior to respondent no. 8 only on the ground that he joined as Junior Engineer four days earlier to respondent no. 8 on 1.8.1981. 11. Having appreciated the rival submissions, I find substance in the submission of Mr. Prasad. Petitioner as also respondent no. 8 were appointed as junior Engineer by a common order and they were asked to join within one week from the date of the order. 8 on 1.8.1981. 11. Having appreciated the rival submissions, I find substance in the submission of Mr. Prasad. Petitioner as also respondent no. 8 were appointed as junior Engineer by a common order and they were asked to join within one week from the date of the order. In my opinion, when the joining time is given in the order of appointment, an employee cannot become senior only on the ground that he has joined the service earlier than another person. The date of joining in respect of employees appointed by the same order, if considered relevant, will lead to mad race and seniority shall be determined on fortuitous circumstances. An employee posted at a far away place will certainly take more time to join than a person posted at a nearby place and determining the seniority on the basis of date of joining shall be absolutely illegal. Hence, I am not prepared to hold that the petitioner is senior to respondent no. 8 only on the ground that he joined the service as Junior Engineer few days earlier to respondent no. 8. 12. Petitioner claims to be senior to respondent no. 8 also on the ground that while appointing him and respondent no. 8 by the same order, inter se merit was considered and the petitioner was placed at serial no. 2 whereas respondent no. 8 was placed at serial no. 4. Respondent Corporation as also respondent no. 8 have denied this fact and their stand is that petitioner as also respondent no. 8 were appointed by the same order and their qualification being the same, the seniority had been determined on the basis of age, which cannot be said to be illegal. 13. Mr. Verma submits that appointment of petitioner as also respondent no. 8 was preceded by a selection process and interview and petitioner having been shown above respondent no. 8, he is senior to the latter. 14. Mr. Narendra Prasad, however, submits that qualification of both petitioner and respondent no. 8 being same and having been appointed by the same order, inter se seniority has been determined on the basis of age and respondent no. 8 being admittedly older than petitioner, respondent Corporation did not err in holding respondent no. 8 senior to the petitioner. 14. Mr. Narendra Prasad, however, submits that qualification of both petitioner and respondent no. 8 being same and having been appointed by the same order, inter se seniority has been determined on the basis of age and respondent no. 8 being admittedly older than petitioner, respondent Corporation did not err in holding respondent no. 8 senior to the petitioner. He points out that every other factors being same, determination of seniority on the basis of age cannot be said to be illegal. It has been pointed out that in present circumstance, age is a relevant factor. 15. Having appreciated the rival submissions, I do not have the slightest hesitation in accepting the broad submission of Mr. Prasad that every other factors being same, age can be relevant factor for determination of seniority. But the question in the present case is as to whether other factor relevant for decision of inter se seniority is one and the same or not. The assertion of the petitioner is that before their appointment, they were subjected to a selection process and interview and thereafter the list was prepared and petitioner was placed above respondent no. 8 in the letter of appointment. It is not accidental, learned counsel highlights. The assertion of the petitioner that appointment was preceded by selection process and interview, has not been denied by the respondents. It is not the case of the respondent Corporation or for that matter, respondent no. 8 that the names of the persons in the letter of appointment have been arranged in alphabetical order or on the basis of their date of application or following any other norm. In the agenda note (Annexure-2) put before the Standing Committee, it has been clearly stated that the names have been arranged in accordance with the seniority in which the name of the petitioner is above respondent no. 8. Not only in the initial letter of appointment, in the order appointing the petitioner and respondent no. 8 on ad hoc basis in anticipation of the approval of the Commission, name of the petitioner has been shown above respondent no. 8. Even in the seniority list published on 8.7.1999 (Annexure- 5), petitioner has been shown to be senior than respondent no. 8. On repeatedly being questioned, the respondent Corporation has not come out with the records leading to the appointment of petitioner and respondent no. 8. Even in the seniority list published on 8.7.1999 (Annexure- 5), petitioner has been shown to be senior than respondent no. 8. On repeatedly being questioned, the respondent Corporation has not come out with the records leading to the appointment of petitioner and respondent no. 8 as Junior Engineers which could have thrown light on the subject. In the absence of any specific plea by the respondent Corporation as to how the names of the candidates were arranged and in view of what has been stated above, one has to assume that in the order of appointment, the placement was made in accordance with merit. Petitioner has not only been shown above respondent no. 8 in the order of appointment but the agenda note (Annexure-2), in clear terms held him senior to respondent no. 8. Further, while appointing the petitioner and respondent no. 8 as Junior Engineers on ad hoc basis in anticipation of approval of the Commission, petitioner has been shown at serial no. 1 whereas that of respondent no. 8 at serial no. 3. In such a situation, I am of the opinion that reckoning seniority between petitioner and respondent no. 8, on the basis of age is illegal. 16. To put the record straight, it is relevant here to state that the petitioner has challenged the impugned orders also on the ground that the impugned decisions have been taken without giving opportunity of personal hearing and further the Administrator had passed the order after he ceased to be the Administrator of the Corporation. However, in view of my answer to the main question, I deem it inexpedient to answer the same. 17. In the result, the writ application is allowed. The order dated 5.9.2000 (Annexure-21) holding respondent no. 8 senior to the petitioner and the order dated 11.9.2000 (Annexure-22) promoting respondent no. 8 to the post of Assistant Engineer on regular basis, are quashed. The respondent Corporation shall now proceed In the matter in accordance with the law treating the petitioner senior to respondent no 8. No costs.