Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner challenges the communication made to him vide letter no. 8592 dated 6th August, 1998, whereby and whereunder the claims of the petitioner in regard to amendment of the seniority list as well as for grant of time bound promotion and selection grade scales have been rejected. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, after merger of the cadres of Deputy Collectors and Sub-Deputy Collectors, was shown below some of the persons in the gradation list, though he could have ranked senior to them and, accordingly, he made several representations before the authorities concerned since 1995 and when the same were not being disposed of the petitioner approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 396 of 1995 along with others and this Court vide order, as contained in annexure 5, permitted the petitioners to withdraw the writ application with liberty to pursue their representations before the authorities concerned in the light of annexure 3 and after passing of the order of this Court the representation of the petitioner was considered and rejected on 6th August, 1998. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the authorities in a most mechanical and cryptic manner rejected the claim of the petitioner and the same, therefore, is not sustainable in law. 4. From the tenor of the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner intends to challenge the gradation list of the officers of the Administrative Services of the State of Bihar after merger of the cadres of Deputy Collectors and Sub-Deputy Collectors. The gradation list, as it appears, was finally published in the year 1976 and therefore, the petitioner was shown at serial no. 32. There is nothing in the writ application to show that after the publication of the gradation list in the year 1976 or even before publication of the same, the petitioner ever filed any objection even to the tentative gradation list and after 20 years of the publication of the gradation list, he started filing representations for revision of the gradation list. However, the representation of the petitioner now has been disposed of pursuant to the direction of this Court, as referred to above. 5. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. However, the representation of the petitioner now has been disposed of pursuant to the direction of this Court, as referred to above. 5. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 3 stating therein inter alia, that the petitioner was quite junior to others, and, therefore the question of reconsideration of his case or to revise the gradation list does not arise. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that all due promotions have been given to the petitioner and this writ application, thus, is liable to be dismissed. 6. I am informed that by now the petitioner has superannuated. 7. In case, the petitioner had any grievance to the gradation list prepared and published in the year 1976, he could have filed his objection then and there. It is not denied that even after publication of the tentative gradation list no opportunity was given to the petitioner, Thus, it must be presumed that sufficient opportunities were given to the petitioner and similarly situated persons to file objection against the tentative gradation list. 8. Admittedly, no objection was filed to the publication of the gradation list and even assuming that the representation filed by the petitioner after 20 years be treated as an objection, the same was not entertainable. 9. The petitioner, thus, has not made out a case for revision of the gradation list nor this Court finds it appropriate to issue necessary directions in this regard, as the claim of the petitioner is almost stale one. 10. For the reasons aforementioned, therefore, I do not find any merit in this application. 11. It is, accordingly, dismissed. 12. No order as to costs.