Judgment The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers: “i. To issue an appropriate writ including a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the proceedings/decisions making process of State Advisory Committee for allocation of State of Personnel dated 31.10.2001/1.11.2001 whereby and whereunder the earlier decision taken on 7.7.2001 by the same committee was arbitrarily dropped and for quashing the tentative final list of Asstt. Engineers, Deptt. of Irrigation allotted to Jharkhand on the aforesaid basis on 15.6.2002. ii. To issue an appropriate writ including a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondent to get the tentative final list for allocation of the services of the Assistant Engineers rectify strictly in accordance with the guidelines as prescribed by Mr. B.B. Tondon, then Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pension, Govt. of India, New Delhi vide his guidelines dated 14.9.2000 as well as 21.12.2000. iii. To issue an appropriate writ including a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondent/committee to allocate the services of the Assistant Engineer strictly in the ratio of 1:2:36 as decided by the State Advisory Committee (SAC) between the State of Jharkhand and Bihar considering the facts that the Respondent committee has not allocated the services of Assistant Engineer in between the aforesaid two states in terms of the ratio as has been laid down by them as a result of which the persons appointed in the year 1979 and 1987 and even prior to that, they have got privilege over the person appointed in the year 198990, whereas the said respondent committee should have decided upon in the ratio of 1:2:36 for each appointment year to maintain the balance in the cadre, age and seniority and to direct to take into consideration the letters from Jharkhand Government dated 27.11.2002 and 14.12.2002 especially on the facts that the State Govt. requested the committee to consider the allocation of cadre year wise. iv. To issue an appropriate writ including a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the seniority list dated 14.2.2001 which has been published ignoring the Rules of the seniority of the junior employees. requested the committee to consider the allocation of cadre year wise. iv. To issue an appropriate writ including a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the seniority list dated 14.2.2001 which has been published ignoring the Rules of the seniority of the junior employees. v. To issue an appropriate writ/direction in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to treat the petitioner senior to those of the adhoc/noncommissioned appointees and direct to publish forthwith the fresh list on the Rules of balancing age and seniority and to give due weightage to the Engineers, who have come in service by successfully competing the Bihar Public Service Commission.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that a Memorandum was prepared on 8th January, 1979 for appointment of 1158 Assistant Engineer and the Cabinet approved such Memorandum on 8th January, 1979. Accordingly, 1158 Assistant Engineers were appointed on 25th January, 1979 and 964 such Assistant Engineers were regularised in service by an Ordinance namely, the Bihar Gazetted Officers Adhoc appointments Regularization Ordinance, 1986 on 30th December, 1986. The petitioner, pursuant to Advertisement No. 93 of 1985 issued by the State of Bihar, was appointed on the post of Assistant Engineer on 04.04.1989. A seniority list was prepared on 14th February, 2001 in which the petitioner has been placed below the persons who have been joined as private respondents in the present proceeding. They were appointed on 25th January, 1979 and their services were regularised on 30th December, 1986 by issuing the Ordinance of 1986 as noticed above which has now become an Act. 3. Counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the State of Bihar as well as State of Jharkhand justifying the seniority list of 14th February, 2001. The petitioner was directed by this Court to join the private respondents in the present proceeding and notices were issued to them and they appeared through their counsel however, they have not filed their counter affidavits. 4. Mr. The petitioner was directed by this Court to join the private respondents in the present proceeding and notices were issued to them and they appeared through their counsel however, they have not filed their counter affidavits. 4. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1990) 2 SCC 715 , (2010) 10 SCC 247 and (2009) 2 SCC 541 , the persons whose initial appointment was on adhoc basis and who were not appointed on the vacant sanctioned posts, their seniority cannot be counted from the date of their initial appointment on adhoc basis. Moreover, the private respondents were appointed without following the procedure prescribed in the Recruitment Rules in as much as, the recommendation by the Bihar Public Service Commission for making their appointment on such posts, has not been taken while appointing these 1158 Assistant Engineers and therefore, the petitioner who is a direct recruit and who has been appointed as Assistant Engineer by following the procedure prescribed under the Recruitment Rules cannot be placed below the persons who were not regularly appointed. Moreover, he contends that by the Ordinance of 1986 which has now become an Act, only the services of those persons have been regularised and it nowhere prescribes that all the conditions prescribed under Recruitment Rules have been waived for appointment of those persons and therefore, it cannot be said that their initial appointment has also been validated in so far as the issue of seniority is concerned. Moreover, relying on notification dated 30th December, 1986, which specifically prescribes that the issue of the seniority has been left open, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has further submitted that after the creation of the State of Jharkhand, the joint seniority list prepared by the State of Bihar cannot be given effect to and it was the duty of the State of Jharkhand to prepare a fresh seniority list. He has further submitted that it is not open to the State of Jharkhand to contend that the petitioner has approached this Court belatedly and therefore, he cannot be permitted to raise his grievance before this Hon'ble Court in respect to the seniority list dated 14th February, 2001, as the petitioner has a legal right to claim his seniority and such a right cannot be taken away from the petitioner on mere technicalities. Moreover, the petitioner has approached this Court in the year, 2003 itself and thus, there was no latches on the part of the petitioner. 5. As against this, Mr. Srijit Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the State of Jharkhand has contended that since the Ordinance of 1986 is not under challenge, it is not open to the petitioner to contend that these Assistant Engineers cannot be given seniority with respect to the date of their initial appointment, that is, w.e.f. 25th January, 1979. Moreover, relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1986 SC 2086 , he further submits that since the petitioner has approached this Court after more than 16 years, this writ petition may not be entertained as there are latches and delay on the part of the petitioner. He has further submitted that the settled principles which have been made applicable over the years for deciding the seniority of the persons, have been adopted by the State and therefore, at this belated stage, the matter does not require any interference by this Court as it would create chaos in the cadre of the Assistant Engineers. 6. Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the State of Bihar has submitted that this writ petition is barred by the principles of resjudicata as a similar issue has been decided in W.P. (S) No. 2299 of 2001 and the seniority list dated 14.02.2001 has been approved by this Court. Moreover, he further submits that, since the seniority list was issued way back in 2001 and therefore, it should be inferred that the petitioner accepted the seniority list issued on 14th February, 2001. 7. Moreover, he further submits that, since the seniority list was issued way back in 2001 and therefore, it should be inferred that the petitioner accepted the seniority list issued on 14th February, 2001. 7. Replying to the contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, even before this Court the State of Jharkhand has disclosed that the total number of posts of the Assistant Engineer is 867 only whereas, as many as 964 persons were regularised by order dated 30th December, 1986 and therefore, even if the services of the Assistant Engineers were regularised w.e.f. 30th December, 1986, it cannot be assumed, in view of the affidavit filed by the State of Jharkhand itself, that these persons were appointed against the vacant sanctioned posts and therefore, these persons cannot be given seniority with respect from the date of their initial appointment i.e. 25.01.1979. 8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the contentions raised by the parties, I am of the view that in view of the various decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the persons, who have been regularly appointed, more particularly direct recruits who have been selected by following the procedure prescribed in the Recruitment Rules, cannot be put to any disadvantage, merely because the services of the private respondents were regularised. Moreover, the contents of the Ordinance and the notification dated 30.12.1986 issued pursuant to the Ordinance of 1986 clearly provide that the issue of the seniority was left open and therefore, it is not correct to contend that, since the Ordinance of 1986 has not been challenged by the petitioner, he cannot be permitted to challenge the seniority list issued on 14th February, 2001. I am in agreement with the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner when he contends that the State of Bihar has no jurisdiction to issue a joint seniority list of the officers who after the bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Bihar, were posted in the State of Jharkhand and therefore, the seniority list dated 14.02.2001 cannot be given effect to. It is also an admitted position that the total number of sanctioned vacant post was less than the total number of Assistant Engineers who were appointed on 25.01.1979 and therefore, it cannot be assumed that the private respondents in this writ petition were appointed against sanctioned vacant post. It is also not correct that in W.P. (S) No. 2299 of 2001, a similar issue was raised and the seniority list dated 14.02.2001 has been approved by this Court. Moreover, I am of the considered opinion that before taking a final decision in this case, the petitioner should be permitted to raise all his grievances raising all the pleas which have been raised before this Court, before the Respondent No.4. 9. At this stage, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that this writ petition may be disposed of with a direction to the respondent-State of Jharkhand to consider the representation of the petitioner and a direction may be given to the State of Jharkhand for preparing a fresh seniority list. 10. In view of the aforesaid, the Respondent-State of Jharkhand more particularly the Respondent No.4 is directed to decide the issues raised by the petitioner before this Court and any other plea which he raises in his representation by a reasoned order. Needless to say that Respondent No.4, if required may consult Respondent No.3 also on this issue for taking an appropriate decision in the matter. 11. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the liberty to the petitioner to make a representation within a period of six weeks and thereafter, his representation should be decided by a reasoned order duly communicated to him within a period of next 12 weeks. In view of the affidavits which have been filed before this Court, it is desirable that the State of Jharkhand prepares its own seniority list so as to resolve the dispute of seniority of the persons who were appointed and whose services were regularised pursuant to the Ordinance issued on 30th December, 1986 visavis the direct recruits who were appointed on the post of Assistant Engineers.