JUDGMENT : Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties extensively. 2. The writ application was filed by the petitioner to treat him to be in the cadre of State Drug Inspectors w.e.f. 29.03.1993 and give him appropriate seniority based on the said date. 3. The other prayer of the petitioner is to modify the notification no. 1242 (15), dated 18.11.2013, issued under the signature of Under Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar, Patna, by virtue of which, the date of appointment of the petitioner has been indicated as 20th of May, 1994 instead of 29.03.1993. The relevant notification is Annexure-1 to the writ application. 4. During the pendency of the writ application, I.A. No. 6290 of 2016 has been filed for staying the operation of the Notification No. 863 (15), dated 04.08.2016, by virtue of which the petitioner has been transferred and posted as Incharge Assistant Drug Controller, Begusarai and in his place one Shri Ravindra Kumar Sinha has been transferred and posted as Incharge State Drug Controller. The notification dated 04.08.2016 has been annexed as Annexure-20 to the said Interlocutory Application and quashing has been sought of the said notification as well. 5. Yet another I.A. No. 6615 of 2016 has been filed for quashing order no. 862 (15), dated 04.08.2016 (Annexure-26) as well as Annexure-19 and 20, dated 22.04.2016 and 04.08.2016 respectively. 6. I.A. No. 6382 of 2016 and I.A. No. 7354 of 2016 are Interveners Applications, which have been filed by people who are going to be directly affected by any relief, which may be extended to the petitioner in the present writ application, since they are necessary parties, Interlocutory Applications are allowed. 7. Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as B.P.S.C. for short) advertised the posts of Drug Inspector (Ayurved) for appointment under the State of Bihar. The said advertisement was numbered as Advertisement No. 12 of 1990. 8. Yet another advertisement, bearing Advertisement No. 22 of 1990 was issued for appointment on the post of Drug Inspectors (Allopath - my expression to highlight the distinction between the two Drug Inspectors). As the petitioner was working as Inspecting Officer, Drugs at Agartalla, he applied through proper channel against both the advertisement. 9. Petitioner was selected and recommended by B.P.S.C. for appointment as Drug Inspector (Ayurved). By virtue of appointment letter dated 27.03.1993 (Annexure-2). Petitioner gave his joining on 29.03.1993. 10. As the petitioner was working as Inspecting Officer, Drugs at Agartalla, he applied through proper channel against both the advertisement. 9. Petitioner was selected and recommended by B.P.S.C. for appointment as Drug Inspector (Ayurved). By virtue of appointment letter dated 27.03.1993 (Annexure-2). Petitioner gave his joining on 29.03.1993. 10. Since the petitioner had also applied for the post of a Drug Inspector (Allopath), he was also selected and recommended by B.P.S.C. on 09.12.1993. However, since the petitioner was already working on the post of Drug Inspector (Ayurved), a letter was issued to him by the Under Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar on 09.03.1994 (Annexure-3) to give his option whether he would like to work as Drug Inspector (Ayurved) or Drug Inspector (Allopath). Petitioner responded, vide his letter, dated 25.03.1994, which is Annexure-4 to the writ application. The letter has significance to the dispute, therefore, the Court would like to reproduce the same in to, which is as under:- izs"kd] jes'k dqekj vkS"kf/k fujh{kd ¼vk;qosZn½ jkT; vkS"kf/k fu;a=.k iz'kklu fcgkj iVukA lsok esa] vij lfpo] LokLF; foHkkx] fcgkj ljdkjA iVuk] fnukad 25-03-1994 fo"k;%& vkS"kf/k fujh{kd ds in ij fu;qfDr ds laca/k esaA egk'k;] vkids Kki la[;k 338¼5½ fnukad 01-03-1994 ds vuqikyu esa eq>s dguk gS fd esjk yh;su vkS"kf/k fujh{kd vk;qosZn ds in ij cjdjkj j[krs gq, vkS"kf/k fujh{kd ds in ij fu;qDr gksuk pkgrk gwWaA vkS"kf/k fujh{kd vk;qosZn ds dqN dk;Z yfEcr gS ftldk fu"iknu vko';d gSA d`i;k mlds fu"iknu rd mDr in ij vfrfjDr izHkkj esa jgus fn;k tk,A 25-03-1994 fo'oklHkktu g0@& vLi"V ¼jes'k dqekj½ vkS"kf/k fujh{kd ¼vk;qosZn½ fcgkj] iVukA 11. The petitioner thereafter joined the post of Drug Inspector (Allopath) on 20th of May, 1994, pursuant to the Advertisement No. 22 of 1990. It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner had never resigned from the post of Drug Inspector (Ayurved) and since his request for lien and continuance on the post of Drug Inspector (Ayurved) was not rejected or negated, therefore, he was also continuing on the post of Drug Inspector (Ayurved) w.e.f. 29.03.1993. 12. Petitioner, thereafter, has annexed a series of notifications to show that he was asked to perform the duty as a Drug Inspector (Allopath) as well as Drug Inspector (Ayurved). 12. Petitioner, thereafter, has annexed a series of notifications to show that he was asked to perform the duty as a Drug Inspector (Allopath) as well as Drug Inspector (Ayurved). As per the petitioner, the two posts of Drug Inspector (Ayurved) and Drug Inspector (Allopath) were interchangeable, if not, the two kind of responsibilities would not have been thrust upon him from time to time. To further reinforce the argument that the post of Drug Inspector (Allopath) and Drug Inspector (Ayurved) were interchangeable, petitioner has annexed notification, dated 10.10.1991 as Annexure-8 to the writ application. 13. There were certain other litigations in between, which do not have too much of significance as to the core issue. However, it seems that the petitioner filed a representation before the Principal secretary, Health, Government of Bihar, Patna on 20th of January, 2015 to consider his date of appointment on the post of Drug Inspector (Allopath) w.e.f. 29.03.1993 and give him corresponding seniority. The representation has been annexed as Annexure-10 to the writ application. 14. While the petitioner was functioning as In-charge Assistant Drug Inspector-cum- Licensing Officer, Patna (Rural), he was authorised to function as State Drug Controller vide notification, dated 12.03.2015, i.e. Annexure-11 to the writ application. 15. A notification no. 1242 (15), dated 18.11.2013 was issued and a committee was constituted vide order dated 13.05.2015 with regard to the objection of the petitioner regarding the entry as to his date of appointment. 16. On 09.01.2012, a provisional gradation list of Drug Inspectors was notified. Objections were invited within a month. Petitioner filed his objection since petitioner was shown at Sr. No. 19 in the gradation list, whereas as his position should have been at S. No. 12 or 13, keeping in mind his appointment as a Drug Inspector (Ayurved) on 29.03.1993. However, the authorities have negated the claim of the petitioner that his date of appointment as Drug Inspector should be 29.03.1993. The date shown in the notification, dated 18.11.2013 (Annexure-1) is 20.05.1994 and date of confirmation as 20th of May, 1996. 17. However, the authorities have negated the claim of the petitioner that his date of appointment as Drug Inspector should be 29.03.1993. The date shown in the notification, dated 18.11.2013 (Annexure-1) is 20.05.1994 and date of confirmation as 20th of May, 1996. 17. The core issue, which has been urged on behalf of the petitioner, is that his seniority should be reckoned from the date he was appointed as Drug Inspector (Ayurved), even for the post of Drug Inspector (Allopath), even though he was subsequently appointed on the recommendation of B.P.S.C. on 09.12.1993, on the basis of a different advertisement and on a separate application of the petitioner. His submission is that in terms of Annexure-4, he continued to perform responsibility on lien from the date he was appointed as Drug Inspector (Ayurved). His history of transfers and postings would indicate that he has been saddled with the responsibility to work as a Drug Inspector (Ayurved) as well as Drug Inspector (Allopath) and the respondent-authorities have not made any distinction between one post or the other. 18. Submission of such kind has to be tested within the framework of law and not what a litigant perceives about things. Since appointment on such posts are guided and controlled by a codified law, which is known as The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 as well as the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, the Court, therefore, must refer to the relevant provisions, which govern such appointments. The relevant Sections are Section 21, 33-G and 33-H. So far as Rules are concerned, the Rules, which have been brought to the notice of this Court, are Rule 49, 50, 50-A and 167. 19. The word "Inspector" has been defined under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in Section 3 (e) as under: "3 (e) "Inspector" means – (i) in relation to (Ayurvedic, Siddha or Unani) drug, an Inspector appointed by the Central Government or a State Government under section 33-G. (ii) In relation to any other drug or cosmetic, an Inspector appointed by the Central Government or a State Government under section 21." 20. So far as the Drug Inspectors (Ayurved) is concerned, the provision, which governs them, is Section 33-G, which reads as under: "33-G. Inspectors – (1) The Central Government or a State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint such persons as it thinks fit, having the prescribed qualifications, to be Inspectors for such areas as may be assigned to them by the Central Government or the State Government as the case may be. (2) The powers which may be exercised by an Inspector and the duties which may be performed by him and the conditions, limitations or restrictions subject to which such powers and duties may be exercised or performed shall be such as may be prescribed. (3) No person who has any financial interest in the manufacture or sale of any drug shall be appointed to be an Inspector under this section. (4) Every Inspector shall be deemed to be a public servant within the meaning of section 21 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) and shall be officially subordinate to such authority as the Government appointing him may specify in this behalf." 21. So far as Drug Inspectors are concerned, the substantive provision governing them is Section 21 of the Act, which is reproduced herein below: "21. Inspectors – (1) The Central Government or a State Government may by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint such persons as it thinks fit, having the prescribed qualifications, to be Inspector for such areas as may be assigned to them by the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be. (2) The powers which may be exercised by an Inspector and the duties which may be performed by him, the drugs or classes of drugs or cosmetics or classes of cosmetics in relation to which and the conditions, limitations or restrictions subject to which, such powers and duties may be exercised or performed shall be such as may be prescribed. (3) No person who has any financial interest [in the import, manufacture or sale of drugs or cosmetics] shall be appointed to be an Inspector under this section. (3) No person who has any financial interest [in the import, manufacture or sale of drugs or cosmetics] shall be appointed to be an Inspector under this section. (4) Every Inspector shall be deemed to be a public servant within the meaning of section 21 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), and shall be officially subordinate to such authority [having the prescribed qualifications], as the Government appointing him may specify in this behalf]." 22. Section 21 is part of Chapter 4 of the Act, whereas a separate Chapter has been provided for in relation to Ayurved, Siddha and the Unani drugs. Section 33-G forms part of Chapter IV-A. 23. There is no ambiguity in the statutory provisions, which have been noted in the earlier part of the order that there are two different kinds of Inspectors, one belonging with Allopath medicines and the other relating to Ayruved, Siddha and Unani drugs. The qualifications and powers are different and compartmentalized, which also includes power for initiating prosecutions. The Court despite going through the provisions, minutely, has not found any overlapping provisions with regard to the responsibilities or powers of the two Inspectors. They both operate in diverse areas and domain. 24. It is because of the statutory provisions, two different advertisements were issued by the B.P.S.C. which were Advertisement No. 12 of 1990 relating to Drug Inspectors (Ayurved) as well as Advertisement No. 22 of 1990 relating to Drug Inspectors (Allopath). The petitioner first applied for the post of Drug Inspector (Ayurved). He was selected, recommended and appointed. He also applied for the post of Drug Inspector (Allopath) as per Advertisement No. 22 of 1990 and here too he was selected and recommended and then appointed as the Drug Inspector (Allopath). It was in this background that a letter was issued to the petitioner vide Annexure-3, dated 09.03.1994, giving him an option to either continue on the post of Drug Inspector (Ayurved) or Drug Inspector (Allopath). Petitioner joined the post of Drug Inspector (Allopath), but he did write a letter, contained in Annexure-4, requesting the government to continue him on the post of Drug Inspector (Ayurved) on lien, as he had some work and responsibilities left in relation to his previous appointment. Since the State Government remained silent petitioner joined the post of Drug Inspector. The post and nomenclature envisaged under Section 21 of the Act. Since the State Government remained silent petitioner joined the post of Drug Inspector. The post and nomenclature envisaged under Section 21 of the Act. He has continued to work on the post of Drug Inspector. 25. There cannot be a situation where an employee can be allowed to work on two distinct posts simultaneously by virtue of being appointed on one post then another. The option was given to the petitioner. The petitioner did opt for the post of Drug Inspector, joined that responsibility and whatever be his motive behind writing the letter, contained in Annexure-4, the same does not create any right in favour of the petitioner. The question of lien would arise, provided the petitioner continued to hold the substantive post of Drug Inspector (Ayurved) and the Government allowed him to go on lien as Drug Inspector. But since the nature, qualification and duties are totally different from one another, such an absurd kind of request coming from the petitioner was ignored by the State Government and the State Government offered him the post of Drug Inspector which he readily accepted and gave his joining. His unilateral request for a lien is down right absurd, legally. 26. Nothing much should be read into the different notifications of postings, because if the State Government or the authorities in the department have either ignored the law or continued to violate the provisions of the law then that by itself does not create a right in favour of the person who is a beneficiary of such violations. 27. In fact, the Court had to summon the Principal Secretary, Health, Government of Bihar, Patna to explain as to why a responsible government which is supposed to be governed by rule of law has been seen to be violating the statutory provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, keeping in mind the different Sections and the Rules, which clearly makes a distinction between "Inspectors" who are appointed under Chapter 4 of the Act and "Inspectors", appointed under Chapter 4 (A) of the Act. The Principal Secretary did accept that there seems to be some serious omission or oversight which nobody seems to have noticed earlier in the department. However, he did undertake that no such deviation or omission will be committed by the department and clear division of the two cadres in terms of the statutory provisions would be strictly enforced henceforth. 28. The Principal Secretary did accept that there seems to be some serious omission or oversight which nobody seems to have noticed earlier in the department. However, he did undertake that no such deviation or omission will be committed by the department and clear division of the two cadres in terms of the statutory provisions would be strictly enforced henceforth. 28. The past is past. But that cannot become a precedent, having an overriding effect over the statutory provisions of the Act. 29. The day, the petitioner joined the post of Drug Inspector he by necessary implication gave up his post of Drug Inspector (Ayurved), because there are no notifications or orders of the government allowing him to continue on both the responsibilities. The petitioner's working on the post of Drug Inspector (Ayurved) from 29.03.1993 has no significance to his subsequent appointment and joining on the post of Drug Inspector in a separate transaction and deliberation by the B.P.S.C. and the State. The petitioner in terms of the statutory provisions as well as the appointment letter continues to be a Drug Inspector and this post in no manner can correlate to his earlier appointment or joining on the post of Drug Inspector (Ayurved). The joining of petitioner on the post of Drug Inspector amounts to foregoing his previous post and service, which is not unusual when a person makes a choice between one post or the other, looking at prospects, which may be available between the two posts. 30. It is in this background that the petitioner has been shown to have joined as Drug Inspector on 20th of May, 1994 and the whole effort of the petitioner through this writ application is to push back his date of appointment to 29.03.1993, the day he had joined as Drug Inspector (Ayurved) only with the object of defeating the right and seniority of his colleagues, who all form the cadre of Drug Inspectors. 31. Since the post of Drug Controller of the State of Bihar is a very coveted post and there has always been bitter competition to occupy that post for whatever perks and privileges it may provide. There has also been very keen contest either through lobbying or through litigations to occupy the post of Drug Controller of the State. The present writ application has no different object than what has been stated above. There has also been very keen contest either through lobbying or through litigations to occupy the post of Drug Controller of the State. The present writ application has no different object than what has been stated above. If the petitioner is allowed the benefit of pushing back his date of joining from 29.03.1993 on the post of Drug Inspector (Ayurved), he manages to sit at the top and thereby grab the post of State Drug Controller, at the cost of the interveners, who are senior to the petitioner in the gradation list as well as the notification, contained in Annexure-1, dated 18.11.2013. 32. The State of Bihar through the counter affidavit as well as the interveners have taken a similar stand that the two posts are totally different. No doubt the State of Bihar has issued common notifications, giving responsibility of both kinds upon certain persons, but those are not supported by law or statutory provisions. The petitioner's seniority cannot be counted from the date he joined the post of Drug Inspector (Ayurved). His past service as Drug Inspector (Ayurved) came to an end the day he opted for the post of Drug Inspector. His date of joining which is 20th of May, 1994 on the post of Drug Inspector has been correctly shown in terms of Annexure-1 and the rejection of the representation of the petitioner for these reasons are dully supported by Statute so cannot be termed as either arbitrary or irrational. The decisions are based on sound principles of law, governing such posts and service jurisprudence. 33. In totality, therefore, the Court comes to a considered opinion that the petitioner has no case for shifting his date of joining as Drug Inspector to 29.03.1993, as he was not even appointed or borne on the cadre. The prayer in fact is absurd and outlandish. The writ application, therefore, is dismissed being devoid of merit.