JUDGEMENT Jayanandan Singh, J. 1. It has been quite some time since the matter was finally heard and orders were reserved. Hence, this Court has got the matter listed under heading to be mentioned? on 21.6.2011, 23.6.2011 as well as on 27.6.2011 to refresh itself with regard to the facts of the case, issues involved and submissions of the respective learned counsels for the parties. They have been kind enough to do that, in brief, in respect of all relevant aspects of the matter arising before this Court in the matter. 2. Petitioner, who, at the time of filing of the writ application, was posted as Assistant Professor in the Department of Pharmacology in Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna, (for short PMCH?), through his writ application, has challenged a Notification contained in Memo. No. 652(17) dated 30.8.2006 (Annexure-7, Page-36), issued from the Department of Health, Government of Bihar, by which, for reasons mentioned therein, in effect, the period of working of private respondent as Tutor in the Department of Anatomy in PMCH (from 31.12.1990 to 30.6.1995) has been accepted as notionally spent as Tutor, Pharmacology for the purposes of cadre seniority etc. Accordingly the final seniority list, published through Department?s letter no. 1240(17) dated 29.11.2003 (An.-4, page-27), has been modified and private respondent?s ranking has been fixed at 5A?, above serial no. 6 and below 5. However, it has been mentioned that the matter shall stand affected by the judgment in L.P.A. No. 74 of 2005. Petitioner has further prayed for a direction to the official respondents not to give effect to the said notification and not to give effect to it for the purposes of appointments on higher posts. Subsequently, petitioner has brought on record a notification contained in memo no. 599(17) dated 4.7.2007 (Annexure- 12, page-148), issued during the pendency of the present writ application, by which, as a working arrangement, on provisional basis, in her own pay- scale, private respondent has been posted as Associate Professor in the Department of Pharmacology, PMCH. Subsequently, petitioner has brought on record a notification contained in memo no. 599(17) dated 4.7.2007 (Annexure- 12, page-148), issued during the pendency of the present writ application, by which, as a working arrangement, on provisional basis, in her own pay- scale, private respondent has been posted as Associate Professor in the Department of Pharmacology, PMCH. Through I.A. No. 7565 of 2009, he has also brought on record a provisional gradation list and a final gradation list, along with letters dated 10.1.2008 and 8.7.2008 respectively (Annexure-14, Page 161 and Annexure-16, Page 165), also published during the pendency of this writ application, putting the private respondent above the petitioner, with a prayer for liberty to challenge the said Annexures-12 & 16 also. The said I.A. of the petitioner was allowed by this Court by order dated 3.2.2010. 3. Facts of the case are hardly in dispute. Petitioner and the private Respondent, both are qualified doctors and did their post graduation in Pharmacology, in the year 1986 and 1989 respectively. Both were earlier appointed as medical officers in the State Health Service in different years. Before 1997 Rules came into force, appointments at the entry point in teaching cadre of Medical Colleges of the State used to be made from eligible and qualified medical officers of State Health Service, on the basis of subject-wise panels prepared, after inviting applications through advertisements. One such advertisement was issued on 29.12.1987. Admittedly petitioner was not an applicant at that time, whereas the private respondent, who was a simple MBBS at that point of time, was applicant for more than one subject-panel, and, there appears no dispute that, she was included in the panels of Pharmacology as also of Anatomy, at least. It is admitted that she was appointed/posted as Tutor in the Department of Anatomy in PMCH by Notification dated 29.12.1990 (Annexure-R4/1, page 77 and also R4/17, page-243) on the basis of her placement in the 1987 panel for Anatomy, whereas one Dr.P.N.Pandit was appointed/posted as Tutor in the Department of Pharmacology in PMCH by Notification dated 31.12.1990 (Annexure-R4/16, page-241), on the basis of his placement in the 1987 panel for Pharmacology. The private respondent has claimed that, though she was senior to the said Dr.P.N.Pandit in the panel of Pharmacology, she was wrongly left out. The private respondent has claimed that, though she was senior to the said Dr.P.N.Pandit in the panel of Pharmacology, she was wrongly left out. This has been disputed by the petitioner asserting that she was, in fact, junior in the panel, hence she could not be appointed/posted as Tutor, Pharmacology and got appointment/posting as Tutor, Anatomy. Respondent has asserted that the said Dr.Pandit was not a post graduate in Pharmacology, hence he could not be senior to her in the panel. By referring to the respective points of Dr.Pandit and herself from the 1990 panel (Annexure-R4/2, page-82 and typed copy R4/24, page-83), she has tried to create an inference that the said Dr.Pandit must have been junior? to her in the 1987 panel for Pharmacology. Hence his appointment as Tutor, Pharmacology, amounted to denial of her legitimate due. 4. But 1987 panel has not been brought on record either by the private respondent or by the official respondents. As will be noticed later on, there is also no collateral evidence on record to support this claim of the private respondent. During the course of hearing, this Court requested the learned counsel for the official respondents to produce the relevant records of the Department, to make the picture clear in respect of this and some other aspects of the matters arising in this case. As will be evident from orders dated 15.3.2010 and 7.7.2010, repeated indulgence were granted for the purpose, but, ultimately, this Court was informed that the required relevant records were missing from the Department, for which a communication had been sent to the D.S.P., Secretariat Police Station on 17.4.2010 (i.e. after this Court requested for the records), with a request to register an F.I.R. in respect of disappearance of the records. This disappearance of records has been discovered in the Department after almost 30 years, is itself surprising. This disappearance of records has been discovered in the Department after almost 30 years, is itself surprising. It was the official respondents who had to establish from the records, in view of the charge of the petitioner against the husband of the private respondent, who happens to be a senior I.A.S. officer in the State, of having exercised undue influence, that their subsequent acts were bonafide, in accordance with law and strictly with a view to remedy the wrong done to the private respondent in not appointing/posting her as Tutor, Pharmacology from 1990 or 1991 panel, although vacancies were available, as per her choice, in PMCH and/or in Nalanda Medical College and Hospital, Patna (for short NMCH?). In absence of the records, and in absence of the 1987 panel, these aspects of the matter still remain shrouded in mystery. 5. A Division Bench of this Court noticed a virtual tug of war? between rival interests when two doctors moved this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 9462 of 1989, raising grievance against appointments still being made from the said 1987 panel, on the ground that, subsequent to preparation of the said panel, they had also become eligible. The Bench found that this was happening because the panel was not being prepared on yearly basis. Hence, as agreed by the State Government also, this Court directed by its order dated 8.3.1990 [Dr.Rita Sinha vs. State of Bihar : 1990 (2) PLJR 243] that, for preparation of panel in respect of all teaching posts for the year 1990-91, application must be invited on or before 31st December, 1990; the date of eligibility should be fixed by 31st January, 1991, which should also be the last date for making applications; the applications so received, should be processed and panel in respect of different teaching posts be notified latest by 31st December, 1991, after completion of different formalities; appointments from that panel be made in respect of vacancies occurring from 1st January, 1992 to 31st December, 1992 and the same schedule should be followed onwards. The Bench found that appointments from 1987 panel, which was approved by the State Government in September 1988 itself, had not been made till 4.1.1990. The Bench found that appointments from 1987 panel, which was approved by the State Government in September 1988 itself, had not been made till 4.1.1990. Hence, to balance the rival interest, the Bench directed that, against different teaching posts for the year 1990, fresh advertisement should be issued, inviting applications, latest by 31st May, 1990, fixing eligibility for making applications as on 30th June, 1990 and the panel on that basis be prepared and notified latest by 31st December, 1990. The Bench also directed that vacancies, which had become available and which were to become available up to 31st March 1990 was to be filled up from the panel of 1987, prepared on the basis of advertisement dated 31.12.1987. All teaching posts falling vacant between 1.4.1990 and 31st December, 1991, was to be filled up from advertisement to be published on or before 31st of May, 1990, as directed. 6. Therefore, in terms of the orders of the Division Bench, steps were taken and subject-wise panels were notified for the year 1990, including a panel for Pharmacology (Annexure-R4/2, page 82 and Annexure- R4/24 with rejoinder filed on 28.7.2010). In this panel private respondent was at serial no. 1(?), whereas petitioner was not within first 50. As per the directions of the Division Bench, vacancies arising only between 1.4.1990 to 31st December, 1991, had to be filled up from this panel. Petitioner has brought on record a notification dated 30.12.1991 (Annexure-21, page 231) by which, from 1990 panel, he, along with others were posted as Tutor, Pharmacology in different Medical Colleges, except PMCH and NMCH and has asserted that there was no vacancy of the post of Tutor, Pharmacology available during the period in PMCH and NMCH and hence the private respondent got herself posted as Tutor, Anatomy in PMCH from 1987 Panel itself, against a vacancy which was available there for 1987 panel only, as per the directions of the Division Bench. 7. Private respondent has also brought on record a copy of relevant part of panel of Pharmacology of 1991 (Annexure-R4/3, page 84) to show that she was first in this panel, whereas petitioner was at serial no.6 therein. This may not be very relevant, as admittedly petitioner was appointed/posted by Annexure-21 from 1990 panel and accordingly he joined on 1.1.1992 at his place of posting. This may not be very relevant, as admittedly petitioner was appointed/posted by Annexure-21 from 1990 panel and accordingly he joined on 1.1.1992 at his place of posting. Inclusion of the name of petitioner in 1991 panel also, obviously may be because, while his application against advertisement dated 31.5.1990 may be pending, he may have applied also against advertisement dated 31.12.1990, both issued in terms of the Division Bench order. 8. In chronological order, next document is an application of the private respondent dated 30.7.1992 (Annexure-22/A, page 234 and its typed copy Annexure- R4/22 with her said rejoinder) addressed to the Commissioner-cum-Secretary of the Department. It appears that she also gave a copy of her said application to one Anil Kumar Singh, an Ex-Member of State Health Welfare Board, who forwarded the same, along with his recommendation letter dated 31.7.1992 (Annexure-22, page 233 and its typed copy Annexure- R4/23 with her said rejoinder) to the State Minister of the Department, who, in turn, on the same day, endorsed it to the Commissioner for action on it in the light of statement portion marked as Ka? by giving justice in the matter. From reading of this application of the private respondent it is clear that occasion arose to her to file it when she came to know that one post of Tutor in Pharmacology in NMCH had fallen vacant in September 1991. She says in the application that she had come to know that Establishment Committee had recently recommended name of some medical officer for his posting against that vacancy. She says that in the panel prepared for 1990, she was at first serial; she had done her M.D. in Pharmacology in 1989 and, as a first choice, she wanted to be posted in Pharmacology in PMCH/NMCH. In 1990 she was told that no post in Pharmacology was vacant, hence, under compulsion she had to join as Tutor in the Department of Anatomy in PMCH. In 1991 panel also she was at the first serial. Hence she prayed that she should be posted in NMCH against vacant post in the Department of Pharmacology. In 1990 she was told that no post in Pharmacology was vacant, hence, under compulsion she had to join as Tutor in the Department of Anatomy in PMCH. In 1991 panel also she was at the first serial. Hence she prayed that she should be posted in NMCH against vacant post in the Department of Pharmacology. Thus, this application of private respondent makes it clear that her sole target was the reported vacancy in NMCH of the post of Tutor, Pharmacology, and no other post, and she became interested in her posting in the subject of Pharmacology from 1990 and 1991 panel only when she came to know about availability of such opportunity in Patna itself. Surprisingly there is no whisper even, in this application, about her placement in the 1987 panel and so called  injustice? caused to her due to posting of said Dr.P.N.Pandit in PMCH from that panel. This Court does not find the interpretation of her said application made by her learned Counsel, as an open request for her posting from 1990 or 1991 panel in any medical college in the subject, as correct. Apparently, this request of the private respondent was not acceded to by the Department. Hence she moved this Court through C.W.J.C. No. 4668 of 1994. There is nothing on record to suggest that this writ application was ever taken up by this Court and any interim order was passed directing the respondents to file counter affidavit, or whatever. However, a notification was issued by the Department dated 12.6.1995 (Annexure-5, page 30 and Annexure-R4/4, page 88) notifying the posting of 11 teachers of different Medical Colleges of different faculties, which included the private respondent also, posting her in the capacity of Tutor, Pharmacology in PMCH. In the circumstances, she withdrew her writ application on 9.8.1995. 9. This notification dated 12.6.1995 deserves a little more notice. By this notification, 3 Professors, 3 Assistant Professors, 4 Tutors and one Medical Officer, on deputation as Assistant Professor, posted in different Medical Colleges in different faculties, were transferred and posted on different posts in different colleges. This included private respondent also. 9. This notification dated 12.6.1995 deserves a little more notice. By this notification, 3 Professors, 3 Assistant Professors, 4 Tutors and one Medical Officer, on deputation as Assistant Professor, posted in different Medical Colleges in different faculties, were transferred and posted on different posts in different colleges. This included private respondent also. But, whereas all other persons were transferred and posted against available vacancies, it was only the private respondent who was posted in anticipation of a future vacancy of Tutor in Pharmacology in PMCH and till then she was designated only and was to draw her salary against a post of Associate Professor fallen vacant recently in the Department. It is worthwhile to reproduce the note made in her respect here itself for appreciation:- 7. 10 It is true that by this notification one Dr. Anita Verma, Tutor in Pharmacology, posted in Ranchi Medical College, Ranchi (for short  RMCH?), was also transferred and posted against a vacant post of Tutor, Pharmacology in NMCH, Patna. There is no material on the records of this case to show as to under what circumstances the said post of Tutor fell vacant in NMCH and under what circumstances the said Dr. Anita Verma was posted against it. Private respondent has alleged that this was also in ignorance of her preferential claim, as the said Dr. Anita Verma was junior to her in the panel of 1990 as well as of 1991. Private respondent has brought on record two documents, the notifications dated 8.1.1990 and 30.6.1990 (Annexure-R4/21 & R4/20 respectively with her said rejoinder) in support of her claim that vacancies of the post of Tutor in Pharmacology were, indeed, available in PMCH/NMCH, but her preferential right to either of them was overlooked by the Department. Hence injustice? was done to her this time also. The first notification is dated 8.1.1990. Apparently it covers a vacancy arising prior to 31st March 1990, the cut off date fixed by the Division Bench (judgment dated 8.3.1990) for filling up of vacancies from 1987 panel, and was in respect of posting of an already appointed Tutor waiting for posting. Therefore this notification is of no help to the case of private respondent that a vacancy was available in PMCH on which she could be posted. Therefore this notification is of no help to the case of private respondent that a vacancy was available in PMCH on which she could be posted. It may be pointed out that private respondent has not raised any grievance at any point of time before this Court in her either of the writ applications or in her application dated 30.7.1992 filed in the Department against her non-posting as Tutor, Pharmacology in PMCH from 1987 panel. Her entire claim, all the time, hinged upon her ranking in 1990 and 1991 panel, and her non-posting from either of those in PMCH or NMCH as Tutor in Pharmacology. The other notification is dated 30.6.1990. By this notification, one Dr. Sudhakar Singh, posted as Tutor, Pharmacology, NMCH, from the date of his posting itself, was posted as Assistant Professor, Radiotherapy in RMCH, Ranchi, against a vacant post of Associate Professor there and placed on deputation in PMCH, (Patna again) till further orders. This notification is strange in itself, for the manner in which the incumbent was posted from NMCH to a non-existent vacancy in RMCH of another department, against a higher post, and then brought back on deputation in PMCH, (Patna again) all by one order. However, from the last line of the last paragraph on the second page of the notification, it is clear that the said Dr. Sudhakar Singh was also a 1987 panellist. Therefore, the vacancy of the post of Tutor, Pharmacology in NMCH, on which he was initially posted, appears to be of prior to 31st March, 1990. Therefore the private respondent could not lay any claim to it also, as her consistent claim was on the basis of her empanelment and ranking in the panel for 1990, which, as per the decision of the Division Bench, covered vacancies arising only between 1.4.1990 to 31.12.1991. As said earlier, in spite of being requested by this Court, the official respondents have not produced the relevant records from which further details in respect of the matter could be found out, nor any of the respondents have placed on record, or pleaded, anything more in respect of initial posting of said Dr. Sudhakar Singh as Tutor, Pharmacology in NMCH and his later change to Radiotherapy, nor have they produced a copy of the 1987 panel, from which the exact status of the said Dr. Sudhakar Singh as Tutor, Pharmacology in NMCH and his later change to Radiotherapy, nor have they produced a copy of the 1987 panel, from which the exact status of the said Dr. Sudhakar Singh or the status of the incumbent posted by the said notification dated 8.1.1990 could be found out. In the circumstances, this Court finds that, in absence of any claim raised by her at any point of time earlier and till 1995, in respect of her non-posting from 1987 panel, these notifications, on their own, do not lend support to the theory of injustice?, as being propounded by the private respondent now, to have been meted out to her on the basis of her ranking in 1987 panel itself. 11. But from the said notification dated 12.6.1995 one thing is clear. The way the private respondent has been posted by it against a non-existent vacancy, to draw her salary against a vacancy of higher post, to be automatically absorbed on the next vacancy of the post of Tutor, Pharmacology in PMCH, becoming available in future, it is clear that the Department had bent over backwards to the maximum at that point of time to oblige her. The Department does not even appear to have cared to consider that the subsequent vacancy, arising in normal course, may fall in the quota of panellists of the subsequent year, as directed by the Division Bench, as referred to above. The records having not been made available to this Court, in spite of request, reasons for such type of posting of the private respondent could not be available to this Court. Therefore, at this stage, it is not possible for this Court to altogether rule out the allegation of the petitioner that this was all, in fact, done to oblige the IAS husband of the private respondent. As per her own admission, by notification dated 17.5.1996 (Annexure-R4/5, page-92 and R4/18, page-246), she was absorbed against a post of Tutor, Pharmacology in PMCH, falling vacant due to retirement of one Dr.S.K.Prasad. In absence of records, it is not clear whether anybody in the Department gave it a thought that the post falling vacant in normal course in 1996, due to retirement of the incumbent, had to be filled up from the panel for the year 1996, in terms of the said Division Bench judgment of this Court, or not. In absence of records, it is not clear whether anybody in the Department gave it a thought that the post falling vacant in normal course in 1996, due to retirement of the incumbent, had to be filled up from the panel for the year 1996, in terms of the said Division Bench judgment of this Court, or not. For justification of this action, it was stated in the notification that, although being eligible in 1987 (which was not her case in the representation) and being first in the panel of 1990, due to some reasons ( ), she was not posted earlier on the post of Tutor, Pharmacology. However, later on, upon consideration of her representation, she was posted by notification dated 12.6.1995 (as discussed above) as Tutor in PMCH against a vacancy of Associate Professor on the basis that on the first vacancy of Tutor occurring in future, she will be automatically absorbed, which was now being done by this notification due to vacancy arising (in the circumstances already noticed above). 12. It appears that, the private respondent was still not satisfied and wanted her immediate re- designation and promotion as Assistant Professor in Pharmacology. Hence she again submitted an application dated 27.7.1996 (Annexure-R4/25A with her said rejoinder) with enclosures, through the Principal of PMCH, with a request to consider her earlier teaching experience (as Tutor in Anatomy) sufficient for the purpose, in the background of earlier such examples. In the meanwhile, in terms of some orders passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2028 of 1990 and in the light of some notification of the Department dated 20.6.1996, teachers working in the Department of Pharmacology, having post graduate degree, were re-designated as Assistant Professors and amalgamated with Assistant Professors working from before, and a provisional combined seniority list was drawn of 26 such Assistant - professors and forwarded to all the Principals/ Superintendents of all the Medical Colleges through Department?s letter dated 12.12.1996 (Annexure-1, page- 19, Annexure-R4/6, page-96 and R4/19 with her said rejoinder), for information and inviting objections. Petitioner was at serial no. 25 in the list, whereas the name of private respondent did not find place therein. Hence she also filed her detail objection to it on 20.12.1996 (Annexure-R4/7, page 97 and R4/25, with her said rejoinder). Petitioner was at serial no. 25 in the list, whereas the name of private respondent did not find place therein. Hence she also filed her detail objection to it on 20.12.1996 (Annexure-R4/7, page 97 and R4/25, with her said rejoinder). In this objection petition, for the first time, she raised her protest in respect of posting of her juniors, Dr.P.N.Pandit from 1987 panel (as discussed earlier) and Dr.Anita Verma (she was posted in RMCH, in which private respondent did not appear to be interested) from 1990 panel, ignoring her claim. In her petition she, therefore, requested that, in the light of earlier examples, her period of working as Tutor, Anatomy (30.12.1990 to 1.7.1995), in the special circumstances, be treated as teaching experience in Pharmacology ( , so that justice may be done to her. She also prayed that she be given her due position in the seniority list as per her teaching experience and be designated as Assistant professor. In her pleadings, she has claimed that in the said combined provisional seniority list dated 12.12.1996, there are examples of incumbents being re-designated as Assistant Professors, in spite of having less than required 3 years (later 4 years) of teaching experience. But this is contrary to her claim for teaching experience for her period of working as Tutor, Anatomy and seniority and promotion on that basis. Finally, after considering the objections/ representations, final seniority list of teachers of the Department of Pharmacology was published on 9.9.1997 (Annexure-3, page 24). In the list, petitioner ranked at serial 25, shown to have been re-designated on 30.12.1994, whereas private respondent ranked at serial 27, shown to have been re- designated on 1.7.1995, after counting her earlier teaching experience (page-25, photocopy). 13. It appears that the private respondent was satisfied with her placement in the said final seniority list dated 9.9.1997 as, there is nothing on record to show that she filed any further representation in the matter for almost six years. In the meanwhile, it appears that, another provisional seniority list of teachers of the Department of Pharmacology was published through Department?s letter no. 681(17) dated 23.8.2002. Against this also, private respondent does not appear to have filed any objection/representation, as also pleaded by the petitioner. Ultimately a final seniority list was published through letter dated 29.11.2003 (Annexure-4, page-27 and R4/8, page-100). 681(17) dated 23.8.2002. Against this also, private respondent does not appear to have filed any objection/representation, as also pleaded by the petitioner. Ultimately a final seniority list was published through letter dated 29.11.2003 (Annexure-4, page-27 and R4/8, page-100). In this list, petitioner was placed at serial no.8 and shown to have been re- designated as Assistant Professor on 30.12.1994, whereas the private respondent was placed at serial no.9 and was shown to have been re-designated as such on 1.7.1999, i.e. after completion of required 4 years of experience in the Pharmacology Department, upon her joining on 1.7.1995. After this, 7 from the said final list, were posted against the posts of Associate Professors by notification dated 13.12.2003 (Annexure- R4/9, page 104). This caused a grievance to her. Hence, she filed a representation on 19.12.2003 (Annexure- R4/10, page-106). In this representation, she claimed that she should be given seniority in the panel of Pharmacology from 31.12.1990 itself, as, due to mistake of the Department, she was posted in Anatomy instead of Pharmacology, and should be placed at serial no. 6 in the list and should be promoted as Associate Professor, Pharmacology in PMCH. She filed another representation to the same effect on 20.3.2004 (Annexure-R4/11, page- 110). She claims in her pleadings that the Secretary of the Department gave her a personal hearing also on 24.3.2004, but to no avail. Hence she moved this Court through C.W.J.C. No. 4329 of 2004. This writ application was heard by a learned Single Judge of this Court and was dismissed by a reasoned order dated 8.12.2004 (Annexure-6, page-32, Annexure-R4/12, page- 113). In respect of this order, learned counsels for both the sets of respondent strongly contended that the dismissal order was only on account of delay and not on merits. Therefore it will be appropriate to extract the final findings of the Court herein itself:- "A tentative list of Gradation List of Tutors and Assistant Professors in Pharmacology was prepared and according to the petitioner her name did not figure in that, which assertion is disputed by the respondents, she filed a representation and thereafter a final gradation list was prepared in which the name of the petitioner has been shown at Serial No.9 showing her date of posting as Tutor on 1.7.1995. She contends that for reckoning the seniority, her date of appointment be treated as 13.12.1990, i.e. the date on which she was appointed as Tutor in the department of Anatomy. I wonder how the experience gained by a person in the department of Anatomy can be counted for teaching experience in the department of Pharmacology. In case, while posting the petitioner in the department of Anatomy she was deprived of her right to be posted as Tutor in the department of Pharmacology in the year 1990, nothing prevented her to question the same. In the present application the whole attempt of the petitioner is to dig out the matter from the grave. At such a distance of time, it shall not be prudent exercise of power by this Court to unsettle the matter already settled for more than a decade." 14. The private respondent has filed an appeal against the said order of the learned Single Judge dated 8.1.2004, namely L.P.A. No. 74 of 2005. This appeal was admitted by a Division Bench by order dated 18.5.2005 (Annexure-R4/13, page-117) and it was observed that "In the meantime, any promotion being made will be subject to the result of this case." 15. This appeal of the private respondent is still pending in this Court for final hearing. In the circumstances, the matter, up to this stage, becomes sub-judice before a Division Bench of this Court. Hence the facts as noticed in the above paragraphs, and any comment or view expressed by this Court therein, in any manner whatsoever, must be, at best, treated only as tentative and subject to final decision by the Division Bench in the said appeal, and no party, is at liberty to claim any advantage, on account of anything said or observed by this Court in this judgment up to this stage, in any other proceeding pending in this Court or any matter pending in the Department related to it. 16. But it is actually the action of the official respondents, after the appeal of the private respondent was admitted for final hearing, only with the above quoted observations, which is under challenge in the present writ application. Up to this stage, and so far private respondent remained below him in the seniority list, petitioner was not bothered, in spite of the strange way in which she entered the Pharmacology Department. Up to this stage, and so far private respondent remained below him in the seniority list, petitioner was not bothered, in spite of the strange way in which she entered the Pharmacology Department. Although the private respondent failed to get relief in this Court, but the Department finally saw merit? in her claim. Hence, the anomaly? in her posting in the Department of Anatomy, in spite of her being in the panel of Pharmacology in the year 1987 and 1990, was removed by the impugned notification dated 30.8.2006 (Annexure-7, page-36), by which her period of working as Tutor, Anatomy, from 31.12.1990 to 30.6.1995, was accepted as working as Tutor, Pharmacology on notional basis for cadre seniority and other purpose in the Department of Pharmacology. Accordingly, the final seniority list, published through letter dated 29.11.2003, was corrected and her ranking was fixed provisionally at serial no. 5A? therein. It was observed that the matter was to be affected by the decision in L.P.A. No. 74/2005. A notification was again issued on 7.9.2006 (Annexure-8, page-37), by which, private respondent, and some other designated Assistant Professors, as well as some Tutors, of the Department were posted on the posts of Assistant Professors in view of the coming inspection of team of Medical Council of India and in the interest of functioning of the Medical Colleges and Hospitals. Official respondents have pleaded that, due to prolonged controversy, and in the light of the acceptance on the part of the Department in the notification dated 17.5.1996 (in this regard), legal opinion was obtained and the impugned notification was issued. They also say that objections were also invited to such placement of the private respondent, through paper notice published in the Times of India, in its issue dated 5.1.2007 (Annexure-B, page-128). 17. It appears that, the moment petitioner came to know about the impugned notification, he filed a detail representation dated 23.10.2006 (Annexure-9, page-39) in which he prayed for shifting back the private respondent to serial no. 9 in the earlier final seniority list and for his own posting as Associate Professor against the vacancy becoming available in PMCH. However, Department proceeded in the matter further and again a provisional seniority list of teachers of the Department of Pharmacology, with the name of private respondent shown at serial no. 9 in the earlier final seniority list and for his own posting as Associate Professor against the vacancy becoming available in PMCH. However, Department proceeded in the matter further and again a provisional seniority list of teachers of the Department of Pharmacology, with the name of private respondent shown at serial no. 5 A?, was published and sent to the Principals of the Medical Colleges, through Department?s letter dated 20.11.2006 (Annexure-10, page-137), inviting objections. Accordingly, petitioner filed the present writ application in this Court and also filed an objection (in 9 pages), to the said placement of private respondent in the list, through his letter dated 18.1.2007 (Annexure-11, page-139). 18. However, a notification was issued from the Department dated 4.7.2007 (Annexure-12, page-148), by which private respondent, by way of interim arrangement, in her own pay-scale, on provisional basis, was posted as Associate Professor, Pharmacology in PMCH. This notification was also made subject to the result of L.P.A. No. 74/2005. Subsequently provisional and thereafter final seniority list in respect of teachers of the Department of Pharmacology was also issued through letters dated 10.1.2008 (Annexure-14, page-161) and dated 8.7.2008 (Annexure-16, page-165) respectively, in which the private respondent was shown higher to the petitioner, and some others, on the basis of her provisional designation as Assistant Professor from 31.12.1990? and provisional seniority? subject to decision of L.P.A. No. 74/2005. The entry in the final seniority list, in respect of her was made as follows:- 20. Mk0 ¼Jherh½ jkuh 97¼1½¼17½@12-06-95 foHkkxh; i=kad 652¼17½@ bfUnjk flUgk] ¼vkSicaf/kd lgk;d 30-08-06 }kjk vkSicaf/kd izk/;kid] QekdkWyksth ojh;rk ,y-ih-,-la0&74@05 esa 31-12-90½ U;k;knsk ds ikfjr U;k; fu.kZ; ds krkZ/khu krkZ/khu 19 Accordingly, petitioner filed I.A.No. 7565 of 2009, bringing on record the said lists, as well as his representation dated 14.9.2007 (Annexure-13, page-158) against posting of private respondent by notification dated 4.7.2007 (Annexure-12, page-148), and representation dated 24.1.2008 (Annexure-15, page-163) against her placement in the said provisional seniority list, with a prayer to grant him liberty to challenge the said notification dated 4.7.2007, as well as part of the said final seniority list dated 8.7.2008 also in this matter. As said earlier, the said I.A. of the petitioner was allowed by this Court by order dated 3.2.2010, as these notifications had been issued by the Department during the pendency of the present writ application. 20. As said earlier, the said I.A. of the petitioner was allowed by this Court by order dated 3.2.2010, as these notifications had been issued by the Department during the pendency of the present writ application. 20. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, by no stretch of imagination, it can be conceived that the experience gained in one Department of a Medical College can be counted for the purposes of determining seniority in other Department and for grant of promotion on that basis. He submitted that experience? has to be actual, and it can never be notional?. He submitted that it was only on the basis of actual experience of 3 (later 4) years in the concerned Department, that one could be designated as Assistant Professor and could get his seniority accordingly in the cadre, and not on the basis of experience gained in any other Department, to be counted notionally in the Department. In support of this submission he referred to Resolution of the Department of Health dated 17.12.1990 (Annexure-17, page-178), issued in the light of a judgment of this Court in Dr.Hareram Singh?s case; Resolution dated 20.6.1996 (Annexure-2, page-22), issued in reference to earlier resolutions of 1990; a notification of the Department published in State Gazette in its issue dated 24.5.1997 (Annexure-18, page-181); a copy of Minimum Qualifications of Teachers in Medical Institutions Regulation, 1998? of the Medical Council of India (Annexure-19, page-185); a notification dated 10.10.2008 published in the extra-ordinary issue of State Gazette dated 13.10.2008 (Annexure-20, page- 188)and an extract from issue of a Gazette dated 13.10.2008 containing Criteria for appointment of Senior Residents/Tutor at the Medical College/Hospital? (Annexure-23, page-235). He has also relied upon two judgments of the Apex Court, in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Purshottam [ (1996)9 SCC 266 ] and in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Chandra [ (1997)4 SCC 43 ] in support of his submissions. 21. Learned Counsels for both sets of respondents submitted that, since the matter is sub-judice before a Division Bench of this Court in the L.P.A. of the private respondent, this Court should not go into the question of her entitlement to get her teaching experience of Department of Anatomy counted in the Department of Pharmacology for the purposes of cadre seniority etc. In respect of impugned notification dated 30.8.2006 (Annexure-7, page-30), and the grant of benefits of the period to her by it, they submitted that the same was on the basis of legal opinion, in view of prolonged controversy? and by way of interim measure and was subject to the result of the said L.P.A. The private respondent in paragraph 43 (page-67) has said that "- - - the experience in Anatomy has not been equated with the experience in Pharmacology but respondent no. 4 has been given the working experience of Tutor, Anatomy from 31.12.1990 to 30.06.1995 on a notional basis for the purposes of determination of her inter-se-seniority in the cadre of Tutor/Assistant Professor, in the Department of Pharmacology, - - -". Same stand has been taken by her again in her joint reply filed later on in the case. In respect of her promotion/posting to the post of Associate Professor, her stand is that, she had already become eligible for it, even if her period of working as Assistant Professor was counted from 1.7.1995/1.7.1999. Hence, obviously the period of her working in Anatomy Department was not relevant for the purpose. It was finally submitted that all the impugned notifications, namely Annexures-7, 12 & 16, were issued on provisional basis, and private respondent was being treated designated as Assistant Professor from 31.12.1990, also on provisional basis, pending final decision in her L.P.A. No. 74/2005. Hence their stand is that, issue being the same in the L.P.A., petitioner had no occasion to file this writ application, and it was premature and petitioner should have waited for the final out-come of the L.P.A. The stand of the official respondents also is that the posting of private respondent as Associate Professor is under working arrangement, in her own pay-scale, not a promotion, on provisional basis and their decisions are subject to decision in L.P.A. 22. So far as the main issue being sub-judice is concerned, the respondents are correct. Whether, the period of working of the private respondent as Tutor in the Department of Anatomy (31.12.1990 to 30.6.1995) could be counted for her cadre seniority in the Department of Pharmacology, or not, is to be considered by the Division Bench in her L.P.A. No. 74/2005, which is still pending before this Court for final hearing. Whether, the period of working of the private respondent as Tutor in the Department of Anatomy (31.12.1990 to 30.6.1995) could be counted for her cadre seniority in the Department of Pharmacology, or not, is to be considered by the Division Bench in her L.P.A. No. 74/2005, which is still pending before this Court for final hearing. Respondents submit that petitioner should have waited for final out-come of the said L.P.A. But the question is, if petitioner should have waited for final out-come of the L.P.A., why the respondents should not have waited for it. The private respondent had lost before the learned Single Judge. While dismissing her writ application, mainly on the ground of delay, the Court had also observed that, "I wonder how the experience gained by a person in the department of Anatomy can be counted for teaching experience in the department of Pharmacology." Whether this observation amounted to a finding against the private respondent on merits or an obiter only, is to be decided by the Division Bench in the L.P.A. The respondents could not simply ignore it and grant the relief to the private respondent, what the learned Single Judge had found her not entitled to. Till the date the L.P.A. of the private respondent was admitted, i.e. till 18.5.2005, petitioner was not concerned, as no order affecting his seniority adversely had been passed by the official respondents and the private respondent had already lost before the learned Single Judge. It is the subsequent action of the official respondents, giving benefit of the said period of working of the private respondent as Tutor, Anatomy, for cadre seniority in the Department of Pharmacology, putting her above in the seniority list and above the petitioner, then posting her as Associate Professor, has affected the writ petitioner adversely. Surely he had a cause of action to file the present writ application. Respondents say that these actions of the official respondents is only provisional?, on provisional basis?, as a working arrangement?, in her own pay-scale?, and subject to the result of the L.P.A. But the question is, what was the need, what was the compelling circumstance for all this, when the private respondent had already lost at one stage in this Court against her placement at serial no. 9, and below the petitioner, in the final seniority list published through letter dated 29.11.2003 (Annexure-4 & R4/8) and her designation as Assistant Professor from 1.7.1999, upon her completing 4 years as Tutor in the Department of Pharmacology, after her joining on 1.7.1995. 23. This was a conscious decision by the official respondents after she had filed representations. Her claim to it had already been negatived by this Court. Then what was the hot haste for the official respondents to act upon her representation afterwards, designate her as Assistant Professor in Pharmacology from 31.12.1990 itself, i.e. the day on which she had actually joined as Tutor in Anatomy, issue the impugned notification dated 30.8.2006 (Annexure-7) for the same, issue impugned notification dated 4.7.2007 (Annexure- 12) posting her as Associate Professor and then issue another revised impugned seniority list with letter dated 8.7.2008 (Annexure-16). If all this was made subject to result of the L.P.A., then why could they not wait for the result of the L.P.A., when the private respondent had already lost at one stage in this Court ? It may be made clear that this Court has not proceeded to consider the legality of the actions of the official respondents in issuing those impugned notifications after the admission of appeal of private respondent, as the core issue, based on which the said notifications have been issued, is pending consideration before a Division Bench of this Court. It is actually in context of the propriety, necessity, urgency, justification and bonafide of the official respondents in issuing those notifications in her favour, after admission of her appeal, that this Court has noticed the entire history as above and has delved into the matter. For this purpose, and to know the actual circumstance under which the official respondents had acted in this manner, and had issued the impugned notifications, and the actual so called injustice? caused to the private respondent, in spite of being in the 1987, 1990 and 1991 panel, this Court had requested the learned Counsel of the official respondents to produce the relevant records of the period. But the same was never produced, with a stand that the same were missing. Question is, if the records were missing, how did they come to the conclusion that injustice? was actually done to her, for no fault of her ? But the same was never produced, with a stand that the same were missing. Question is, if the records were missing, how did they come to the conclusion that injustice? was actually done to her, for no fault of her ? Apparently, in the circumstances, only the representation of private respondent was before the official respondents. Were they satisfied with regards to the merits of her claim only on it, without the records being available, or they got impressed about the genuineness of her claim on the influence of her IAS husband ? This Court finds that, these circumstances lead to only one inference that the official respondents were more than eager to oblige the private respondent (or, may be, her IAS husband who may have reached a position of reckoning by now in the administrative hierarchy) by giving her the relief this Court held her not entitled to. The action of the official respondents in issuing the impugned Annexures- 7, 12 & 16 (so far as it relates to private respondent), therefore, fails the tests on the touch- stone of propriety, necessity, urgency, justification and therefore lacks bonafide on the part of the Official respondents and appear to have been done solely under undue influence, on subjective considerations and by way of favour to her (or her IAS husband). It may be reiterated that the official respondents have totally failed to defend their action, either by producing the records, or by disclosing the reasons for the same in their pleadings, except for saying that katipaya kaarano se? ( ?) the private respondent was left out in spite of being in 1987, 1990 and 1991 panel of Pharmacology and was posted as Tutor, Anatomy, hence she deserved to be given the benefit in the Department of Pharmacology for the period she worked in the Department of Anatomy. ( ?) the private respondent was left out in spite of being in 1987, 1990 and 1991 panel of Pharmacology and was posted as Tutor, Anatomy, hence she deserved to be given the benefit in the Department of Pharmacology for the period she worked in the Department of Anatomy. Therefore this Court finds that, in the facts and circumstances as noticed above, it is only fit and proper that the impugned Annexures- 7 and 12, and part of the impugned seniority list, Annexure-16, so far as it relates to the private respondent, are fit to be quashed and it is only fit and proper that the official respondents be directed to maintain status quo in respect of inter-se seniority between petitioner and private respondent as on the date of admission of L.P.A. No. 74 of 2005, preferred by her and pending in this Court. 24. In the circumstances, the writ application is allowed. The impugned notifications, as contained in Annexure 7 & 12, and the seniority list, as contained in Annexure 16, to the extent it reflect the seniority of the private respondent, are quashed. The respondents are directed to restore the status in respect of the parties as on the date of admission of the said L.P.A. No. 74 of 2005 of the private respondent, i.e. as on 18.5.2005, and are further directed not to change their inter-se seniority position as reflected in the final seniority list dated 29.11.2003 (Annexure-4 & R4/8), except with the specific permission of the Division Bench in the said L.P.A. The writ petitioner will be at liberty to move the Division Bench in the said L.P.A. to allow him to intervene in the matter. 25. The respondent Principal Secretary is directed to ensure compliance of the orders, as above, positively within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. M.J.C. No. 3040 of 2006 This contempt application has been filed for initiating a proceeding against the official respondents for issuance of the notification contained in memo no.652(17) dated 30.8.2006, by which the private respondent has been given the benefit of the period of working in the Anatomy Department for the purpose of seniority in Pharmacology Department in spite of dismissal of her writ application with the observation/finding against her as reproduced earlier in this judgment. However, since the appeal of the private respondent against the order of dismissal of her writ application has been admitted by a Division Bench for final hearing and is pending in this Court, this Court does not consider it appropriate to proceed with this contempt matter. The same is accordingly dismissed.