Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the State as well as the learned counsel appearing for the intervenors. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioners, in fact, have challenged the validity of the provisional gradation list issued vide Government Notification No. 3285(S) dated 7.5.2002, contained in Annexure 7, whereby and whereunder their position in the final gradation list, contained in Annexure 2, has been sought to be altered. 3. Learned counsel for the respond-ents/intervenors have raised objection regarding maintainability of the. writ petition on behalf of the Association. Dr. Jha, learned Senior Counsel is also representing another Sangh for intervention in the present writ petition. However, without going into that question, Mr. Kanth, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has fairly confined this writ petition only on behalf of petitioner no. 2. 4. According to Mr. Kanth, the petitioner no. 2s position in the final seniority list has been altered and lowered down by about 175 position. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner no. 2 apprehends that the State authorities acting upon the subsequent notification (Annexure 7) may adversely affect his interest either by reversion/promotion/cadre allocation on account of creation of Jharkhand State by the Bihar State Reorganisation Act. 5. Learned counsel for the respond-ents/intervenors have contended that the notification (Annexure 7) is merely a provisional one inviting objection and no writ is maintainable in view of the law settled unless somebody is adversely affected by any aforementioned action of the State authorities. 6. I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents/ intervenors. So long the notification (Annexure 7) is provisional, it goes without saying that the State authorities cannot act upon it to confer benefit to anyone from it and petitioner no. 2 can only have grievance if the State authorities act upon such provisional gradation list either by giving promotion or reversion or in the matter of allocation of cadre. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show that the State authorities have, in fact, acted upon the provisional gradation list. 2 can only have grievance if the State authorities act upon such provisional gradation list either by giving promotion or reversion or in the matter of allocation of cadre. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show that the State authorities have, in fact, acted upon the provisional gradation list. He, however, contended that the Supreme Court long back in the case of R.M. Ramual vs. State of H.P., reported in (1989)1 SCC 285 , and in the case of S.B. Dogra vs. State of H.P., reported in (1992)4 SCC 455 , has categorically held that after long lapse of time final gradation list cannot be altered/ touched; more so without giving any opportunity of hearing. 8. In view of the law, if any, settled, the petitioners or any other person, including the intervenors, can raise objection, which has been invited by Annexure 7 itself, and the State authorities are bound to consider it and then only to proceed further in the matter, in accordance with law. 9. The writ petition is, thus, disposed of.