JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the private respondents as well as learned counsel for the State. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 16.3.2005 passed by the Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar. The reasoned order came to be passed on the direction of the High Court issued in CWJC No. 8130 of 1999. The said order is Annexure-8 to the writ application which is under challenge. 3. Petitioner had earlier moved this Court claiming seniority over private respondents as well as for payment of certain salary for the period he had worked prior to his regularization. The Court did not decide the issue on merit but left the matter to be looked into and adjudicated by the Secretary of the Department. Secretary of the Department has passed the order holding that the private respondents came to be regularized on the basis of the order passed in CWJC No. 4136 of 1992. Petitioner filed another writ application making a grievance that even though he was engaged earlier than the private respondents his case was overlooked. He filed CWJC No. 7511 of 1994 and based on the assertion and averment a direction was given to consider his case. Petitioner came to be appointed on regular basis on 7.10.2000. Petitioner thereafter made a grievance that based on his initial engagement prior to the engagement of the private respondents he must beget his seniority. 4. Petitioner can only get as much as the High Court earlier decided in CWJC No. 7511 of 1994 which was disposed of with a direction upon the respondent to consider his case for regularization because certain persons came to be regularized ignoring his claim. 5. Admitted position is that the private respondents were regularized by the respondents much earlier than the appointment of the present petitioner which was decided in the meeting dated 10.7.2000. In absence of any finding by the High Court in the earlier writ application that in case the case of the petitioner for regularization is considered it will relate back to his initial appointment, the claim for seniority from the date of his initial engagement seems to be misplaced. The seniority will have to be reckoned from the date of the appointment. The seniority will have to be reckoned from the date of the appointment. Since the private respondents were appointed earlier and the petitioner derived benefit by a judicial order in his favour, without any co-relation to his seniority, the issue of seniority cannot be agitated now seeking such relief in the present writ application. 6. So far as the payment of salary etc. is concerned that is the matter of verification whether the petitioner has been paid for the period he had worked earlier or not. 7. This writ application is misplaced and it is dismissed.