ORDER This writ petition has been filed by the above named nine petitioners challenging office order no.2020 dated 09.07.2005 (Annexure-14) issued vide memo no.703 under the signature of Secretary of the Bihar State Electricity Board (General Administration) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Board’ for the sake of brevity) by which the Board while determining the inter se seniority of Upper Division Assistants made the petitioners juniors to respondent nos. 6 to 9 who were promoted as Upper Division Assistants on subsequent dates claiming it to be grossly violative of principles of seniority laid under Clause 8 (ka) of Board’s Notification No.113 dated 08.05.1978. The petitioners also sought further reliefs to which they are found to be entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The claim of the petitioners is that they were appointed on the posts of Lower Division Assistants in the Board on various dates, all in the year 1982 as per the chart given in paragraph 12 of the writ petition. The further claim of the petitioners is that respondent nos. 6 to 9 were appointed in the years 1977, 1977, 1976 and 1980 respectively on the posts of Lower Division Assistants in the Board as per the aforesaid chart. The same is also clear from the gradation list (Annexure-5) of Lower Division Assistants in the Board in which respondent nos. 6 to 9 are noted at serial nos. 42, 43, 8 and 56, whereas petitioners nos.1 to 9 are noted at serial nos.72, 75, 78, 81, 82, 83, 63, 68 and 71 respectively. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that according to Rules 4.2 (viii) of the Secretariat Instructions of the State Government, which was adopted by the Board in its Resolution No.5 of 1958-59 in its meeting dated 01.04.1958 followed by Standing Order No.04 dated 10.04.1958 issued by the Board, the vacancies occurring in the Upper Division were to be filled up by promotion of Assistants from the Lower Division mainly on the basis of merit though seniority was also to be taken into consideration, but no lower Division Assistants were to be eligible for promotion either permanently or temporarily to the Upper Division until he passed a departmental examination in the following subjects:- (i) A paper on the Seniority Instructions and Rules of Executive Business. --------- 100 (ii) A paper of noting and drafting. --------- 100 (ii) A paper of noting and drafting. -------- 100 (iii) A paper on the Bihar and Orissa Service Code, Travelling Allowance Rules, Pension Rules and Budget Procedure. -------- 100 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the year 1990 the aforesaid examination was held for promotion of Lower Division Assistants to the posts of Upper Division Assistants in which all the petitioners (no.1 to 9) passed and accordingly the Board promoted them against existing vacant posts of Upper Division Assistants in the scale of pay of Rs.1500-50-2000-55-2660 with immediate effect vide order no.6375 dated 31.12.1990 (Annexure-6) with the condition that if the senior Lower Division Assistants on passing the examination within two years were promoted to the posts of Upper Division Assistants then in case vacancy is not available, the petitioners would be reverted on the lower posts. It was also submitted that after promotion to the Upper Division Assistants, the petitioners were never reverted to the lower posts. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners averred that much subsequently in the year 1992, another examination for promotion of the Lower Division Assistants to the vacant posts of Upper Division Assistants was held in the year 1992 in which respondent nos.6 to 9 succeeded and they were provisionally promoted to the existing vacant posts of Upper Division Assistants vide order dated 03.02.1992 (Annexure-7). Thereafter promotion of respondent nos.6, 7 and 9 was confirmed on 19.01.1993 (Annexure-8), whereas that of respondent no.8 was confirmed on 16.01.1993 (Annexure-9). It was also averred that since the said respondents were promoted on the existing vacant posts there was no occasion for affecting the position of the petitioners as per the rules mentioned above. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners asserted that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the tentative gradation list of Upper Division Assistants dated 27.07.1996 (Annexure-10) was prepared by the authorities themselves in which the petitioners, having been promoted prior to respondent nos. 6 to 9, were listed at serial nos.57, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 67, 68 and 69 above the respondents nos.6 to 9 at serial nos.73, 74, 75 and 76. Similarly, when the tentative seniority list dated 05.03.2003 (Annexure-11) was prepared the petitioners were listed at serial no.2, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14 and 15 above the respondents nos.6 to 9 who were at serial nos.18, 19, 20 and 21. 7. Similarly, when the tentative seniority list dated 05.03.2003 (Annexure-11) was prepared the petitioners were listed at serial no.2, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14 and 15 above the respondents nos.6 to 9 who were at serial nos.18, 19, 20 and 21. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that in spite of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, a final seniority list dated 09.07.2005 (Annexure-14) was published by the respondent-authorities placing the petitioners at serial nos.61, 65, 67, 68, 69, 70, 72, 73 and 74 i.e. below respondent nos. 6 to 9 who were listed at serial nos.56, 57, 58 and 59. This, according to the petitioners’ counsel, was done by overlooking both the notifications dated 08.05.1978 (Annexure-4) as well as Government Circular of 1985 (Annexure-3) as also Resolution no.5 of 1958-59 by which the Board in its meeting dated 01.04.1958 adopted the seniority instructions of the State Government followed by Board’s Standing Order No.4 dated 10.04.1958. Thus, he claimed that the aforesaid impugned seniority list dated 09.07.2005 (Annexure-14) is illegal, arbitrary and perverse and is fit to be quashed. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bihar State Electricity Board and its authorities opposed the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners and stated that according to the prescribed procedure vacancies occurring in the upper division were to be filled up by promotion from the lower division mainly on the basis of merit cum seniority and no Lower Division Assistant was eligible for promotion either permanently or temporarily to the Upper Division until he passed the departmental examination. However, in order to protect the seniority of senior assistants from the junior assistants who had temporarily superseded the seniors by passing the promotional examination earlier the Government had issued Memo no.111 E 2-404/551 8524-F dated 24.08.1955 (Annexure-A) holding that the junior assistant will be liable for reversion to the lower division if the senior assistant is successful at upper division examination held within two years following the date on which the senior assistant was temporarily superseded by the junior assistant. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents-Board relied upon a decision of a bench of this Court dated 15.02.2005 (Annexure-12) passed in CWJC No.9453 of 2004 in case of Vijay Narayan Sao Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents-Board relied upon a decision of a bench of this Court dated 15.02.2005 (Annexure-12) passed in CWJC No.9453 of 2004 in case of Vijay Narayan Sao Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors. directing the petitioner of that case to be listed at his appropriate place in gradation list as per the said provision, whereafter a Committee was constituted under the Chairmanship of Chief Engineer (Commercial) Headquarter of the Board to dispose of the matter of gradation of Upper Division Assistants and the said Committee after due examination and after taking all the objections received against the tentative gradation list of Upper Division Assistants submitted its recommendation vide report dated 09.06.2005 (Annexure-C). 10. Learned counsel for the respondents- Board averred that the case of the petitioners of this writ petition also fell in the category of such assistants who were promoted prior to the promotion of their seniors and accordingly in view of the aforesaid recommendation of the Committee, the Board communicated the final gradation list vide office order no.2020 dated 09.07.2005 (Annexure-D) which is challenged by the petitioners annexing it as Annexure-14. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents-Board claimed that the impugned act of the respondent-authorities is very clear considering each and every detail. He further argued that there is nothing to prove that the petitioners had filed representations (Annexures-16 and 17) as claimed by the petitioners, but even if they proved that they had filed such representations then the matter can be remanded for fresh considerations to the authority before whom the said representations were filed. 12. No counter affidavit has been filed by any of the private respondents, namely respondent nos.6, 7, 8 and 9, and out of them, learned counsel for respondent no.8 fairly and clearly submitted that he has got no instructions to contest this writ petition. However, learned counsel for respondent nos. 6, 7 and 9 submitted that he will contest the writ petition on the basis of the pleadings of the respondent-Board and the materials on record. 13. Learned counsel for respondent nos.6, 7 and 9 stated that this Court had passed order dated 15.02.2005 (Annexure-12) in CWJC No.9453 of 2004 which was filed by another similarly situated person who was very senior and by the said order, this Court directed the authorities to finalise the gradation list. 13. Learned counsel for respondent nos.6, 7 and 9 stated that this Court had passed order dated 15.02.2005 (Annexure-12) in CWJC No.9453 of 2004 which was filed by another similarly situated person who was very senior and by the said order, this Court directed the authorities to finalise the gradation list. Accordingly, the authorities vide order dated 17.03.2005 (Annexure-13) constituted a Committee for consideration as per the directions of the High Court. The Committee considered the matter in detail and submitted its report dated 15.06.2005 (Annexure-15) and the said report of the Committee was confirmed by the Board by its final order dated 09.07.2005 (Annexure-14) along with which final gradation list was issued. 14. Learned counsel for respondent nos.6, 7 and 9 submitted that although the petitioners have challenged the final order and final seniority list dated 9.07.2005 (Annexure-14), but they have not challenged the report of the Committee dated 15.06.2005 (Annexure-15) in which the entire matter had been considered and which was affirmed by final order dated 09.07.2005. Hence, he submitted that this writ petition is not maintainable on that score also. 15. Learned counsel for respondent nos.6, 7 and 9 averred that although the names of the petitioners had not been considered in the report of the Committee dated 15.06.2005 (Annexure-15), but broad principles had been considered while preparing the said report and it is rightly based on the circular of the Board dated 08.05.1978 (Annexure-4) especially when the promotion of respondent nos.6 to 9 was within two years of the promotion of the petitioners. Hence, according to him, this writ petition is fit to be dismissed. 16. From the averments made by learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record, the facts are not disputed that all the petitioners (1 to 9) were originally appointed as Lower Division Assistants in the year 1982, whereas respondent nos.6 to 9 were appointed as Lower Division Assistants much before between 1976 and 1982 and hence in the lower division petitioners were junior to respondent nos. 6 to 9. 17. 6 to 9. 17. It is also not in dispute that promotion from lower division to upper division was to be made on the basis of merit-cum-seniority and for that purpose regular examinations were held and the petitioners passed the examination held in the year 1990 and were promoted against the existing vacant posts of Upper Division Assistants with immediate effect vide order dated 31.12.1990, whereas respondent nos.6 to 9 passed the said examination in the year 1992 and were provisionally promoted to the post of Upper Division Assistants on 03.02.1992 and their promotions were confirmed on 16.01.1993 and 19.01.1993 on the then existing vacant posts and hence petitioners were seniors in appointment to the posts of Upper Division Assistants. 18. The parties had also admitted that provisional gradation list of Upper Division Assistants was prepared by the authorities on 27.07.1996 in which petitioners were shown senior to respondent nos.6 to 9 on the basis of their passing examination earlier. Similarly, in the tentative seniority list dated 05.03.2003 also petitioners were listed above respondents nos.6 to 9. 19. The dispute had arisen only after final seniority list dated 09.07.2005 was published by the respondents-authorities placing the petitioners below respondent nos.6 to 9. This, according to the respondents, was done in view of order of a bench of this Court dated 15.02.2005 (Annexure-12) passed in CWJC No.9453 of 2004 and also in view of recommendation of the Committee formed for that purpose in its report dated 09.06.2005 (Annexure-C) which was on the basis of the circular of the Board dated 08.05.1978 (Annexure-4). In this regard, the Government of Bihar had already decided much before vide Finance Department Memo No.111 E 2-404/551 8524-F dated 24.08.1955 (Annexure-1) issued to all the Departments of Government and also to all the Heads of Department attached to the Secretariat in which it was held that in case of no existing vacancies the junior assistant will be liable to reversion to the lower division if the senior assistant is successful at an upper division examination held within two years following the date on which the senior assistant was temporarily superseded by the junior assistant. 20. 20. The said Memo was followed by Memo No.5805 dated 27.04.1966 (Annexue-2) issued by the Appointment Department of the Government of Bihar in which it was held that if selection is made on merit by the appointing authority either on his own or in consultation with the Selection Board in accordance with the prescribed procedure after rigorous examination of character rolls and on assessment of eligibility and the relative merit of the candidates, then the officers so promoted to officiating vacancies would rank senior in the officiating rank and get preference over those superseded by them in the matter of substantive promotion. 21. The Bihar State Electricity Board also issued its Notification No.113 dated 08.05.1978 (Annexure-4) in which it was specifically provided that if after strict examination of eligibility and efficiency, promotion is given, then in the matter of substantive promotion, promoted person would be senior to those whom they had superseded. This provision was made clearly for giving preference to eligibility and efficiency for the betterment of the organization. 22. From the aforesaid circulars, notifications and memos it is quite apparent that the Board had issued Notification dated 08.05.1978 (Annexure-4) and before that there was Memo of the State Government dated 24.08.1955 (Annexure-1) which was disowned by the State Government itself in its fresh Memo dated 25.04.1981 (Annexure-3) practically disowning its earlier Memo dated 24.08.1955. 23. In the said circumstances, what remains for consideration is the circular of the Appointment Department of the State Government dated 27.04.1966 (Annexure-2) and the Notification of the Board dated 08.05.1978 (Annexure-4). Even according to the Circulars of the State Government reversion of such candidates, who were juniors in the Lower Division but had passed the promotional examination earlier, would be only in case where there was no vacancy in order to make room for their erstwhile seniors who had passed the promotional examination within two years after their juniors promoted. 24. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that when respondent nos.6 to 9 were promoted in the year 1992, there was no lack of vacancies, rather they were promoted on the vacant posts of Upper Division Assistants, hence there was no occasion for making any room for them by their juniors in lower division who had passed promotional examination earlier. In the above mentioned situation, the petitioners were wrongly listed below respondent nos.6 to 9 in the impugned final seniority list. 25. So far the Resolution of the respondent Board dated 08.05.1978 (Annexure-4) is concerned, it is quite specific that in case of substantive promotion the earlier promoted person would be considered as seniors to the persons who had passed the promotional examination subsequently. In these conditions, the authorities had rightly prepared the provisional gradation list of 1996 (Annexure-10) and tentative seniority list of 2003 (Annexure-11) in which the petitioners were shown as seniors to respondent nos.6 to 9 which was clearly in accordance with the Notifications of the Board and the Circulars of the Government. 26. So far the order of a Bench of this Court dated 15.02.2005 (Annexure-12) passed in CWJC No.9453 of 2004 is concerned, no doubt the said order was with respect to a similarly situated person, but by the said order, the Court did not express any opinion with respect to the merit of the case, especially when learned counsel for the petitioner of that case prayed that direction be issued to the respondents to finalise the objection and prepare a final gradation list to which the respondent Board raised no objection and hence the writ petition was disposed of only with a direction to the authorities to take a final decision in the matter and prepare a final gradation list within a period of four months. Hence, the said order does not at all favour the respondents. 27. So far the report of the Committee dated 15.06.2005 (Annexure-15) is concerned, the names of the petitioners were not considered and general recommendations were made without considering the provisions contained in the Notification of the Board and Circular of the Government. Hence, the said report was not a fit and proper report and should not have been legally accepted by the authorities of the Board. 28. Since a Bench of this Court in its order dated 15.02.2005 passed in CWJC No.9453 of 2004 had directed the authorities of the Board to take a final decision in the matter which had been taken by the said authority by the impugned order dated 09.07.2005 (Annexure-14), there was no occasion for the petitioners to challenge the said report of the Committee, especially when the petitioners were challenging the order of the Board dated 09.07.2005 (Annexure-14). Furthermore, the report of the Committee was internal matter of the Board for its convenience and had no binding effect and it was only the impugned order dated 09.07.2005 which had affected the petitioners. Thus, the petitioners were quite justified in challenging only the impugned order of the Board dated 09.07.2005 (Annexure-14). 29. So far the point raised by the respondents with regard to absence of any objection of the petitioners is concerned, it is quite apparent that the provisional gradation list of 1996 (Annexure-10) and the tentative seniority list of 2003 (Annexure-11) were prepared showing the petitioners senior to respondent nos.6 to 9 and hence neither they were aggrieved by that, nor there was any occasion for them to raise any objection with respect thereto. However, when the authorities of the Board were changing the position and making the petitioners junior to respondent nos.6 to 9 in the final seniority list of 2005 (Annexure-14) contrary to the earlier lists, it was incumbent upon the authorities to ask for any objection from them informing the Board’s intention to change the seniority, but no such step was taken by the authorities of the Board due to which the petitioners had genuinely suffered. 30. From the conflicting claims of the parties, it is quite apparent that there is no dispute regarding promotion of the petitioners as even according to the respondents, the petitioners were entitled to promotion which was rightly given to them, but the only dispute is with respect to seniority. Hence in view of the Notification of the Board itself in case of substantive promotion, the earlier promoted persons would be senior to those whom they had superseded in promotion. 31. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as principles settled by various notifications and circulars, the impugned order dated 09.07.2005 (Annexure-14) bearing Memo No.703 issued by the respondent-Board is hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to treat the petitioners senior to respondent nos.6 to 9 and prepare a final seniority list accordingly expeditiously. 32. With the observations/directions, this writ petition is allowed.