JUDGEMENT 1. By this writ petition the petitioner seeks a direction from this court that his name should be included in the cadre of Personal Assistant from the cadre of Stenographer. 2. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Stenographer on 1.4.1981 and was confirmed on 1.4.1984 in the office of the Director, Employment & Training, Government of Bihar under Labour Department. 3. The Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Bihar had taken a decision for amalgamation of Stenographers in the cadre of Secretariat Personal Assistants and accordingly a letter was issued by the Deputy Secretary. The Principal Secretary, Labour Resources Department, Bihar, sent the names and service books of those persons who were working as Stenographers, who were to be amalgamated in the cadre of Personal. Assistants by 7.3.1987 to the Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department. 4. The Director, Employment & Training sent the name of one Suryakant Pathak alongwith the name of this petitioner vide letter no. 325, dated 6.3.1987. Consequently on the basis of service book of Suryakant Pathak his service was amalgamated, whereas the service of the petitioner was not amalgamated. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner explains this aspect by stating that a letter no. 642, dated 20.4.1992 was issued to the Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department mentioning the fact that the petitioner had not been absorbed as a Personal Assistant by the Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department although his service book and details was sent to the aforesaid department. The petitioners case remained pending and in the meantime, after the amalgamation the provisional gradation list was published in the year 1995. The petitioner represented his case and prayed for amalgamation to the post of Personal Assistant, which was apparently rejected by Annexure-15, dated 3.4.2008 on the ground that the process of amalgamation took place more than twelve years ago, and the petitioner had not taken any steps to get relief from the department. The petitioner did not care to take any action for twelve years and the gradation list was published firstly in 1995. After publication of the provisional gradation list, the petitioner ought to have filed his objections. The gradation list was finalized in 2003. Thus, his representation was dismissed mainly on the ground of delay. 6. The petitioner did not care to take any action for twelve years and the gradation list was published firstly in 1995. After publication of the provisional gradation list, the petitioner ought to have filed his objections. The gradation list was finalized in 2003. Thus, his representation was dismissed mainly on the ground of delay. 6. The arguments on behalf of the petitioner is that his name was duly recommended by the Department of Employment and Training alongwith the name of Suryakant Pathak and for no apparent reason the petitioners name was left out in the amalgamation process. It is submitted that if the petitioner has a right to be considered and amalgamated in the cadre of Personal Assistant such right cannot be defeated due to lapse of time. 7. The contention on behalf of the State, on the other hand, is that the petitioner was sanguine and did not think it proper to raise his grievance for twelve long years and as such the gradation list which has now attained finality cannot be disturbed after a lapse of aforesaid time. 8. The petitioners contention that his seniority should be considered after a lapse of twelve years has to be rejected on the ground that he cannot be allowed to sleep over the matter and disturb the seniority which was set to rest firstly in 1995 by publication of the provisional gradation list and thereafter in 2003 when the gradation list was revised and finalized. 9. It has been held in several cases that a persons cannot be permitted to challenge the seniority once it has been fixed and it remains in existence for a reasonable period. The Supreme Court in the case of Shiba Shankar Mohapatra V/s. State of Orissa, AIR 2010 SC 706 has reiterated the judgment delivered in the case of K.R. Mudgal V/s. R.P. Singh and Others, AIR 1987 SC 2086 wherein it has been held that the seniority list which remains in existence for three to four years unchallenged should not be disturbed. 10. For the reasons aforesaid I find no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed.