JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. All these aforesaid writ applications have been heard together since the facts delineated and disclosed therein and the relief sought for are more or less similar, with the consent of the respective counsels, the matters have been heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment. W.P. (S) No. 2543 of 2012 2. The captioned writ application has been filed, praying, inter alia, for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondent nos. 1 to 3 to implement and give effect to the final gradation list published by the Deputy Secretary, Environment and Forest Department, Govt. of Bihar as contained in letter no. 1684 dated 02.07.2010 and for issuance of a direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned gradation list as contained in Memo no. 5533 dated 04.10.2007 published by the Deputy Secretary, Forest and Environment Department, Govt. of Jharkhand so far as it relates to placement of the names of the petitioners below the private respondent nos. 6 to 8 in the said gradation list and for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order as contained in Memo No. 3088, dated 12.08.2011, issued under the signature of the Joint Secretary, Forest and Environment Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, wherein, a decision has been taken that earlier final gradation list published by the Govt. of Jharkhand, as contained in Memo No. 5533 dated 04.10.2007 shall remain valid subject to passing of any adverse order by any competent court and further prayer has been made for issuance of an appropriate direction in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents for consequential relief by rectifying the inter se seniority of the petitioners in connection with the inter se seniority as published in the gradation list vide letter No. 1684, dated 02.07.2010 of the State of Bihar and for granting parity in posting and pay scale with the counterparts and batch-mates of the petitioners, who are posted in Bihar. 3. 3. Sans details, the facts, as disclosed and delineated in the writ petition in brief are that in pursuance to the advertisement dated 19.12.1987 by the Bihar Public Service Commission for appointment to the post of the Assistant Conservator of Forest (hereinafter called as ‘ACF', selection to the said post was made and the B.P.S.C. vide letter dated 03.11.1989 recommended the names of 39 finally selected candidates against 40 advertised posts including these petitioners and the Government of Bihar vide Notification dated 30.03.1990 appointed the successful candidates from the aforesaid recommendation made by the B.P.S.C. as per Annexure-3. The appointment to the post of ACFs either by direct appointment or by promotion is governed by the Bihar Forest Service Rules, 1953, as amended from time to time issued vide Notification No. 1635-R dated 30.04.1955. Provision to amended Rule 3 (b) (ii) clearly provides that 50 per cent of the substantive vacancies are to be filled up by way of direct recruitment on the recommendation of Public Service Commission and rest 50 per cent of the vacancies are to be filled by way of promotion from the post of the Range Officers. The copy of the Bihar Forest Service Rule, 1953 notified vide notification dated 30.04.1955 has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. It has been stated in the writ petition that there was some dispute with regard to inter se seniority of direct recruits and the promotees of 1987 batch and since promotees were made senior to the direct recruits, a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 8305 of 1989 was filed in the Patna High Court by the direct recruits, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 13.07.1998. Against the judgment of the Hon’ble Patna High Court, Civil Appeal Nos. 6565 of 1999 (Sanjay Kumar Sinha II & others Vs. State of Bihar & others) was filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court decided the aforesaid case on 31.05.2004, which has been reported in (2004) 10 SCC 734 . Consequent upon the re-organization of the States of Bihar and Jharkhand, the petitioners were allocated finally the State of Jharkhand and the Government of Jharkhand vide letter No. 5533, dated 04.10.2007 published the final gradation list of officers within the State of Jharkhand. Consequent upon the re-organization of the States of Bihar and Jharkhand, the petitioners were allocated finally the State of Jharkhand and the Government of Jharkhand vide letter No. 5533, dated 04.10.2007 published the final gradation list of officers within the State of Jharkhand. However, vide Note No. 3 of the State of Jharkhand of the final Gradation list, a condition was stipulated that this final gradation list will be subject to decision taken by the Dept. of Environment & Forest, State of Bihar in compliance of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6565 of 1999. The State of Bihar published the final gradation list vide letter No. 1684, dated 02.07.2010 in which the petitioners have been shown above the private respondents and the position of the petitioners in the gradation list vis-a-vis the private respondents is published in both the final gradation list of the Govt. of Jharkhand and the Government of Bihar respectively. Sl. No. Name Gradation list of Govt. of Jharkhand Gradation list of Govt. of Bihar 1 Surendra Prasad Suman (Petitioner no. 1) 81 232 2 Nand Kishore Sharma (Petitioner no. 2) 85 239 3 Arun Kumar Singh (Private respondent) 53 325 4 Premjeet Anand (Private respondent) 54 332 5 Ramesh Prasad Singh (Private respondent) 67 274 From the aforesaid tabular form, it is quite evident that the position of the petitioners in the gradation list published by the State of Bihar is above that of the private respondents, whereas in the State of Jharkhand, their position is just the reverse. Subsequently vide order dated 12.08.2011, issued under the signature of the Joint Secretary, Forest and Environment Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, which clearly declares that the final gradation list published by the State of Jharkhand, as contained in Memo No. 5533 dated 04.10.2007 would remain final subject to any adverse order by any competent court of law vide Annexure-10 to the writ application. The final gradation list has been published in the State of Bihar vide Notification dated 02.07.2010 published by the Deputy Secretary, Environment and Forest Department, Government of Bihar, vide Annexure-11 to the writ application. It has been submitted that so far as private respondent nos.6 and 7 are concerned, who are not promoted, were regularised with effect from 03.10.2005 by the order of the Government of Bihar vide para 5 of the Three men committee report (Annexure-6). It has been submitted that so far as private respondent nos.6 and 7 are concerned, who are not promoted, were regularised with effect from 03.10.2005 by the order of the Government of Bihar vide para 5 of the Three men committee report (Annexure-6). Since, they were regularised on 03.10.2005, they could get seniority only with effect from the date of regularisation and they have been placed lower to the petitioners in the gradation list, published by the State of Bihar and so far as respondent no. 8 (promotee) is concerned, since no substantive vacancy was available at the time of the so-called appointment, the respondent no. 8 could get right to post or right to appointment in substantive capacity only after 1998, whereas the petitioners were directly appointed in the year 1990 itself and the promotion of the respondent no. 8 was against non-existent post as per the ratio and the principles of the Hon’ble Apex Court referred to in the case of Sanjay Kumar Sinha II & others Vs. State of Bihar & others reported in (2004) 10 SCC 734 (supra), therefore, the inter se seniority of the petitioners below the private respondents as fixed by the Forest & Environment Dept., Govt. of Jharkhand vide letter No. 5533 dated 04.10.2007 issued by the Deputy Secretary has to be modified and rectified in view of Note No. 3, as contained in the aforesaid letter, which clearly stipulates that the aforesaid gradation list will be subject to the final gradation list published by the State of Bihar (annexed as Annexure-12 to the writ petition). It has been finally contended that the final gradation list of the Government of Jharkhand, as contained in letter No. 5533 dated 04.10.2007 is in flagrant violation of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6565 of 1999 and also the order No. 3088 dated 12.08.2011 of the Forest and Environment Department, Government of Jharkhand has been issued on irrelevant considerations and ignoring the conditions as stipulated in Note No. 3 dated. 04.10.2007 of the State of Jharkhand. W.P. (S) No. 6473 of 2006 4. 04.10.2007 of the State of Jharkhand. W.P. (S) No. 6473 of 2006 4. In the instant writ application, the petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to treat the petitioners equally with the appointees of the same batch i.e. 1985 exam, extending the same benefit and consequential relief, as extended to similarly situated candidates of the same batch in accordance with the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Sinha-II and others Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in (2004) 10 SCC 734 ) and for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing of the tentative Gradation List, as contained in letter no. 5043 dated 30.11.2004 issued by the Department of Forest and Environment, Government of Jharkhand, wherein, the petitioners have been shown below/junior to the reserve category of the direct ACFs appointed on 14.12.1987 and the promotees, whose services till date, have not even been regularised by the Government and for quashing the notification no. 1335 dated 25.02.2005 issued by the Department of Forest and Environment, Govt. of Jharkhand and for quashing of the final gradation list dated 04.10.2007 as contained in letter No. 5533 issued by the Department of Forest & Environment, Government of Jharkhand, wherein, the petitioners who were direct recruits of the Bihar Forest Service (now Jharkhand Forest Service) have been shown below to the reserved category direct ACFs appointed on 14.12.1987 and also the promotee candidates, whose services till date have not been regularised by the Government and for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to extend the seniority/promotion as has been given to other similarly situated candidates of 1985 examination in accordance with the principles and ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Kumar Sinha II case. 5. The facts, as disclosed in the instant writ application, is that in pursuance to the advertisement issued by the Bihar Public Service Commission for the 40 permanent posts of Assistant Conservator of Forests (ACFs), the petitioners applied against the said advertisement and finally the B.P.S.C. published the results on 25.08.1987 and pursuant thereto, it recommended the names of 44 successful candidates for direct recruitment to the post of ACFs. However, out of the said 44 candidates, only 39 candidates reported and joined after issuance of letter of appointment to them on 14.12.1987. However, out of the said 44 candidates, only 39 candidates reported and joined after issuance of letter of appointment to them on 14.12.1987. On 21.10.1987, a cabinet decision was taken regarding filling up all existing vacancies till 31.12.1987 for which appointment is made through B.P.S.C. from current panel of existing examination and accordingly vide letter dated 21.10.1987, issued by the Joint Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat to all the departmental secretaries that in view of the cabinet decision, the Chief Secretary has ordered that in all departments, requisition against the existing vacancies must be sent by 23.10.1987 and the vacancies should be filled up by the BPSC exam. conducted in 1985. The Department of Forest and Environment after going through the decision as mentioned at para 6 found that in addition to 44, there were 13 more vacancies available to be filled up from the same examination held in 1985. Simultaneously request was made to the Secretary, B.P.S.C. vide letter dated 15.02.1988 for sending 13 additional names from the panel of 1985 examination for their appointment to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest, thus in totality, the B.P.S.C. recommended 44 + 13 = 57 candidates for appointment on the post of ACFs and the photo-copy of the order dated 15.02.1988 has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. BPSC vide letter dated 20.02.1988, addressed to the Commissioner cum Secretary, Department of Forest recommended the names of 12 candidates, as per Annexure 4 in which the names of the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 finds a place. Initially out of 44 recommended candidates, only 39 candidates joined the service and subsequently, out of 13, only 11 candidates joined, therefore, 7 posts still remained vacant due to non-joining of candidates. The Secretary of the Department of Forest and Environment vide letter dated 03.05.1989 addressed to the officer on special duty conveyed the decision of the Government to fill up seven vacant posts of ACFs due to non-joining of candidates for different reasons from the merit list of successful candidates of 1985 Exam and thus, requested the said authority to immediately recommend the name of 7 candidates as is evident from Annexure-5. In response to the said letter, the names of eight candidates from the merit list of successful candidates of 1985, were recommended and the names of the petitioner nos. In response to the said letter, the names of eight candidates from the merit list of successful candidates of 1985, were recommended and the names of the petitioner nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 find place in the said recommendation vide Annexure-6 and thereafter, vide Notification dated 10.08.1989, the Department of Forest issued appointment to eight persons as Assistant Conservator of Forest in the Bihar Forest Department vide Annexure-7. The petitioners underwent the training session of 1989-91 in the State Forest Service College, Coimbatore. The Department of Forest and Environment, Govt. of Bihar issued final Gradation list of ACFs vide order dated 18.02.1994 issued provisional seniority list of the officers of Bihar Forest Service, in which the ACFs appointed on 13.04.1988 had been given their rightful place according to the merit list of 1985 B.P.S.C. Exam where the ACFs appointed on 10.08.1989 from the same 1985 examination have not been given the rightful place as per Annexure-11. The Department of Forest and Environment vide Notification dated 23.06.1996, fixed seniority of ACF's selected on various dates on the basis of 1985 exam in view of the judgment passed in case No.- 8306 of 1989 i.e. Vinay Kumar Pal and others Vs. State of Bihar and others. After bifurcation of the cadre, the petitioners were allotted to the State of Jharkhand. It has been submitted that the promoted officers, as shown from Serial No.27-50 in the provisional gradation list are not the members of the service, but still the Govt. of Jharkhand has placed them above the petitioners in the list. The copy of the Resolution No. 2920, dated 26.07.2004 has been annexed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition. The Department of Forest & Environment, Govt. of Jharkhand vide letter dated 30.11.2004, issued a provisional gradation List in utter disregard to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.6565 of 1999, wherein, the petitioners have been shown below the reserved category direct recruits appointed on 14.12.1987 and the promotees. The Department of Forest and Environment, Govt. of Jharkhand vide Notification dated 25.02.2005 confirmed the services of eligible A.C.F.s in compliance of the direction issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the said Notification, the petitioners, who ought to have been shown confirmed below the general category direct recruits for 1987 batch i.e. below the serial no. The Department of Forest and Environment, Govt. of Jharkhand vide Notification dated 25.02.2005 confirmed the services of eligible A.C.F.s in compliance of the direction issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the said Notification, the petitioners, who ought to have been shown confirmed below the general category direct recruits for 1987 batch i.e. below the serial no. 15, have been shown below the reserve category direct recruits 1987 batch and the promotees as is evident from Annexure-16. The petitioners being aggrieved by the said gradation list registered their objection by way of representation dated 20.12.2004 before the competent authority but no decision was taken towards rectifying the anomalies in the provisional gradation list and the said representation is annexed as Annexure-17. The petitioners, who were given the letter of appointment on 28.04.1988 and 10.08.1989 against the same panel prepared after the 1985 exam, are entitled to have their seniority just below the general category candidates, who are appointed on 14.12.1987 against 1985 exams on account of the same being the case of single transaction but to the utter surprise of the petitioners, the reserve category direct recruited officers, who got less marks have been placed at serial nos. 17 to 26 and the promotees have been placed at serial no. 27 to 50 without being regularised by the Govt. It has been submitted that the petitioners, who were substantively selected in the same batch of 1985 selection but issued appointment letter in 1988-89 but as per rule and the quota and rota they are to be notionally placed in their seniority list which is well settled by a catena of decisions and the promotees, who had been promoted in June and November, 1987 were against non-existent posts and therefore, their appointment were contrary to Rules. The Government of Jharkhand through the Deputy Secretary, Forest and Environment came out with a final gradation list vide letter no. 5333 dated 04.10.2007, wherein, the petitioners who were direct recruits to the Bihar Forest Service (now Jharkhand forest service) have been shown below the reserved category direct ACFs appointed on 14.12.1987 and promotees, whose services have still not been regularised by the Govt. 5333 dated 04.10.2007, wherein, the petitioners who were direct recruits to the Bihar Forest Service (now Jharkhand forest service) have been shown below the reserved category direct ACFs appointed on 14.12.1987 and promotees, whose services have still not been regularised by the Govt. and the copy of the final gradation list dated 04.10.2007 has been marked as Annexure-20 to the writ petition and therefore, the tentative gradation list dated 30.11.2004 and final gradation list dated 04.10.2007 have been framed in violation of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2004) 10 SCC 734 and also in violation of the quota Rules and the promotees had already occupied posts far in excess of their 50 % quota could not be shown senior to the direct recruits against their quota. Being aggrieved by the tentative gradation list dated 30.11.2004 and final gradation list dated 04.10.2007, the petitioners have filed the instant writ application for redressal of their grievances. W.P. (S) No. 3583 of 2007 6. In the instant writ application, the petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing/setting aside the decision taken by the Successor State of Bihar (Department of Environment and Forest) by which the services of the Respondent Nos. 9 to 18 have been regularised and for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to declare the appointment of the respondent nos. 9 to 18, as illegal since the said appointments have been made against in excess of vacancies advertized and further for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents more particularly the State of Jharkhand restraining them to give effect to the decision of the State of Bihar for regularising the services of respondent nos. 9 to 18 considering the fact that the successor State of Bihar can not take any such decision for the respondent nos. 9 to 18, who are working in the State of Jharkhand, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Court interpreting Section 72 and 79 of the Bihar Re-organization Act, 2000. 7. The brief facts, as disclosed in the writ petition, are that the petitioners are the direct recruits to the gazetted post of Assistant Conservator of Forest in Bihar/Jharkhand Forest Service of 1990, who are appointed on the basis of A.C.F.'s Competitive Examination, 1987. 7. The brief facts, as disclosed in the writ petition, are that the petitioners are the direct recruits to the gazetted post of Assistant Conservator of Forest in Bihar/Jharkhand Forest Service of 1990, who are appointed on the basis of A.C.F.'s Competitive Examination, 1987. It has been submitted that the Bihar Public Service Commission once recommended the names of certain persons for appointment on the post of A.C.F. Pursuant to 1985 advertisement, no further recommendation could be made by the Commission from the panel prepared pursuant to 1985 advertisement, since the process of subsequent advertisement has already begun and the requisition was sent by the department to the Commission for publishing the advertisement and accordingly the same was published in the year 1987 pursuant to which, the petitioners were appointed. From the aforesaid fact, it is quite evident that the appointments of Respondent no. 9 to 18 were illegal and the Bihar Public Service Commission vide letter dated 20.02.1988 recommended the names of the 12 candidates, over and above 44 candidates, already recommended in which the name of the respondent no. 9, 10 and 11 finds place. Again the department vide letter dated 03.05.1989 has requested the commission to send the names of eight more persons from the list of 1985 ACF Examination and accordingly, the respondent nos. 12 to 18 have been appointed vide letter dated 10.08.1989. The Respondent nos. 9 to 18 were appointed against non-existing vacancies, never advertised in the year 1985, therefore, their appointments were made on future vacancies. Therefore, the Respondent No. 9 to 18 can never claim their seniority over the petitioners who have been appointed substantively pursuant to the direct recruitment against the post advertised for the A.C.F.s Competitive Examination, 1987. Since the Respondent Nos. 9 to 18 are claiming seniority over the petitioners, a writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 6473 of 2006, Arun Kumar Singh & Others Vs. State of Jharkhand has been filed and, therefore, in view of the filing of the said writ petition, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners. W.P. (S) No. 765 of 2009 8. 9 to 18 are claiming seniority over the petitioners, a writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 6473 of 2006, Arun Kumar Singh & Others Vs. State of Jharkhand has been filed and, therefore, in view of the filing of the said writ petition, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners. W.P. (S) No. 765 of 2009 8. The aforesaid writ petition has been filed praying, inter alia, for quashing Final Seniority list, issued by the Forest & Environment Department, Government of Jharkhand vide letter No. 5533 dated 04.10.2007 (Annexure-3), so far as the seniority fixed therein of the petitioners (1990 direct recruits) vis-a-vis the respondent nos. 10 to 42 is concerned and for directing the Respondent Department of Forest & Environment, Govt. of Jharkhand to prepare a fresh Seniority list, placing the petitioners herein as seniors to Respondent nos. 10 to 42 herein and for quashing the Notifications dated 24.03.2008, 30.04.2008 and 01.11.2008 (Annexure-5 series), wherein, the respondents have been given divisional charges of promotional post and for direction to the respondent-State not to give divisional charges/promotion to private respondents, on the basis of impugned final seniority list dated 04.10.2007 and for direction to the respondent-State to give divisional charges/promotion after preparation of the fresh Seniority list on the basis of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Kumar Sinha-II Vs. State of Bihar & Others reported in (2004) 10 SCC 734 and the order dated 14.07.2006 passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 6629 of 2005. 9. The facts, as disclosed in the writ petition, in brief are that the petitioners are the direct recruits to the gazetted post of Assistant Conservator of Forests of 1990 batch in Bihar Forest Service, who were appointed on the basis of the ACF Competitive Examination, 1987 in the Forests and Environment Department, Government of Bihar. The Deptt. of Forests & Environment, Govt. of Bihar finally notified the appointment of 33 candidates including the petitioners vide its Notification dated 30.03.1990. The Deptt. of Forests & Environment, Govt. of Bihar finally notified the appointment of 33 candidates including the petitioners vide its Notification dated 30.03.1990. The petitioners along with their other batch mates filed a writ petition vide W.P. (S) No. 6629 of 2005 regarding illegality/irregularity in the appointments/promotions of other batches of A.C.F.s and consequential seniority thereof and the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court vide order dated 14.07.2006 passed in W.P. (S) No. 6629 of 2005 declined to interfere with the orders of promotion and appointment of respondents and others since the appointment of the respondents were issued 16 to 21 years back, directed respondent State to act in terms with the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Kumar Sinha II Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2004) 10 SCC 734 and further that if provisional Gradation List dated 30th of November, 2004 has been issued in violation of the aforesaid decision and that has been brought to the notice of the authorities by the petitioners and the State Government is required to decide such objections expeditiously and finalise the Gradation list preferably within four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order and thereafter, the petitioners represented before the respondents-authorities regarding the anomalies in the provisional Gradation List dated 30.11.2004, but, despite, the representations, the Respondent-State of Jharkhand published the impugned Final Seniority list on 04.10.2007 vide Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The petitioners have also represented before the State against the impugned final Seniority list dated 04.10.2007. Thereafter, being aggrieved by the impugned final seniority list, the petitioners submitted their representation describing the anomalies on the final seniority list vide representation dated 20.03.2008. The petitioners are also aggrieved by the divisional charges given to the respondent nos. 12 to 35 on the basis of the said final seniority list, therefore, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for redressal of their grievances. W.P. (S) No. 1704 of 2010 10. In the instant writ petition, the petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the provisional seniority list dated 31.03.2010 issued by respondent no. 4 so far it relates to the petitioners, who stood at serial nos. W.P. (S) No. 1704 of 2010 10. In the instant writ petition, the petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the provisional seniority list dated 31.03.2010 issued by respondent no. 4 so far it relates to the petitioners, who stood at serial nos. 321 and 335 as the State of Bihar having no jurisdiction to prepare the provisional or final seniority list in respect to the petitioners as the petitioners are the employees of the State of Jharkhand after bifurcation of the State and that too after final cadre allocation in terms of Section 72 of the Bihar Re-organisation Act, 2000. Petitioner further prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ/direction in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents not to give effect to the said provisional seniority list as respondent no. 4 having no jurisdiction to prepare the same after final cadre has been allocated in respect to the petitioners and the respondents be restrained not to act in terms of the impugned order dated 31.03.2010 and not to disturb the petitioner’s seniority list so prepared by the State of Jharkhand. 11. The facts, as disclosed in the writ petition, in brief are that the petitioners, who were holding the charges of D.F.Os. were appointed as Assistant Conservator of Forest, through direct recruitment by way of examination conducted by the Bihar Public Service Commission in the year 1985 and appointed on 10.08.1989 and 13.04.1988 respectively. After bifurcation of the State, the petitioners have been allocated the State of Jharkhand. The final cadre list was prepared on 11.06.2003 by the Central Government where the name of the petitioners stood at Serial Nos. 118 and 113 respectively and after final allocation of the service of the petitioners to the State of Jharkhand, a tentative seniority list dated 30.11.2004 was prepared by the State of Jharkhand, where the name of the petitioners stood at serial nos. 57 and 51 respectively. The services of the petitioners have been confirmed by the State of Jharkhand and a final seniority list was also prepared by the State of Jharkhand, wherein, the name of the petitioners stood at 57 and 51 respectively, which is evident from the final seniority list dated 04.10.2007 vide Annexure-5 to the writ petition. 57 and 51 respectively. The services of the petitioners have been confirmed by the State of Jharkhand and a final seniority list was also prepared by the State of Jharkhand, wherein, the name of the petitioners stood at 57 and 51 respectively, which is evident from the final seniority list dated 04.10.2007 vide Annexure-5 to the writ petition. After bifurcation of the State of Bihar, the petitioners have been working to the satisfaction of the Respondent-authority in the State of Jharkhand, but all of a sudden, a provisional seniority list dated 31.03.2010 has been issued by the State of Bihar and the name of the petitioners have also been inducted in the seniority list at serial nos. 325 and 321 respectively vide Annexure-6 to the writ petition. However, in view of Section 72 of the Bihar Re-organisation Act, 2000, the State of Bihar has no jurisdiction to prepare the seniority list in respect of the petitioners, who are employees of the State of Jharkhand. Hence, the instant writ petition has been filed for redressal of their grievances. W.P. (S) No. 1845 of 2010 12. The aforesaid writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 31.03.2010, contained in Memo No. 872 passed by the State of Bihar, whereby by the impugned Gradation List, the seniority has been prepared in violation of Section 72 of the Bihar Re-organisation Act, 2000. 13. The short facts, as disclosed in the writ application are that the petitioners are the direct recruit Assistant Conservator of Forests of State Forest Service Cadre of 1988 and 1989 batch appointed vide Notification dated 13.04.1988 and 10.08.1989 issued by the Forest & Environment Department, Govt. of Bihar. After bifurcation of the State of Bihar, the petitioners were allotted the Jharkhand cadre and again the Forest & Environment Department, Govt. of Bihar published the tentative gradation list of State Forest Service officers vide Notification dated 04.08.2003, indicating the seniority of the petitioners from the date of their appointment to the service i.e. 13.04.1988 and 11.08.1989 respectively as is evident from Annexure-5 to the writ petition. During their continuance, the petitioners have been allowed A.C.P. after completion of 12 years of service from the date of appointment. The Forest & Environment Department, Govt. During their continuance, the petitioners have been allowed A.C.P. after completion of 12 years of service from the date of appointment. The Forest & Environment Department, Govt. of Jharkhand vide Notification dated 03.11.2004 issued tentative gradation list of State Forest Service Officers of Jharkhand cadre and invited objections against the gradation list. In the said gradation list also, the seniority of the petitioners were shown from the date of appointment i.e. 13.04.1988 and 10.08.1989 respectively. It has been stated in the writ petition that some state forest service officers of direct recruit 1990 batch filed W.P. (S) No. 6629 of 2005, Arvind Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., challenging appointment of the petitioners and claiming seniority over the petitioners and the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court in the judgment dated 14.07.2006 passed in W.P. (S) No.6629 of 2005, was not inclined to interfere in the issue of appointments/promotions and directed the State Government to issue gradation list within four months. The Forest & Environment Department, Government of Jharkhand issued final gradation list of the State Forest Service Cadre vide Notification No. 5533, dated 04.10.2007 vide Annexure-10 to the writ petition but all of a sudden, the Deputy Secretary, Department of Environment & Forest, Government of Bihar, Patna issued order dated 31.03.2010 and a gradation list has been prepared adversely affecting the seniority of the petitioners and the impugned order dated 31.03.2010 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition) has been challenged in the instant writ petition. W.P. (S) No. 4754 of 2010 14. In the instant writ application, the petitioners have inter alia, prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding upon the Respondent-State of Jharkhand not to disturb the gradation list of State Forest Service Cadre for the State of Jharkhand as published vide letter no. 5533 dated 04.10.2007 (Annexure “3” to the writ application) and for issuance of a writ/direction in the nature of certiorari, inter alia, for quashing the new gradation list for State Forest Service Cadre published by the State of Bihar as published vide letter no. 1684 dated 02.07.2010 (Annexure-9) and for issuance of a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to make postings on the post of the Divisional Forest Officer (D.F.O.) in the existing vacancies on the said posts in the State of Jharkhand on the basis of the gradation list dated 04.10.2007 (Annexure-3). 15. 1684 dated 02.07.2010 (Annexure-9) and for issuance of a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to make postings on the post of the Divisional Forest Officer (D.F.O.) in the existing vacancies on the said posts in the State of Jharkhand on the basis of the gradation list dated 04.10.2007 (Annexure-3). 15. The brief facts, as disclosed in the writ petition, is that vide Notification dated 18.07.1991, 16 persons have been promoted including the petitioner at Serial No. 12 of the said Notification to the post of the Assistant Conservator of Forests in the Bihar Forest Service with effect from 30.03.1990 in the Bihar Forest Service cadre as is evident vide Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The State of Jharkhand has subsequently published a fresh tentative seniority list vide notification dated 30.11.2004 and after taking into consideration, the objections raised to the tentative gradation list dated 30.11.2004 and in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court the State of Jharkhand published a final seniority list vide notification dated 04.10.2007 and in the said gradation list, the name of the petitioner appears at Serial No. 67 to the post of the A.C.F.'s have been assigned position junior to the petitioner with their names appearing at Serial Nos. 70 to 95 of the gradation list. The Respondent State of Bihar issued a provisional gradation list dated 31.03.2010 for the cadre of State Forest Service for both direct recruits and promotees posted in both the States of Bihar and Jharkhand and the name of the petitioner has been placed at serial no. 274 whereas, the directly recruited persons appointed in the year 1990 on the basis of the advertisement of 1987, who were rightly placed below the petitioner in the gradation list prepared by the State of Jharkhand (Annexure-3) in accordance with Rule 35 of Bihar Forest Service Rules, 1953, have been placed above the petitioner at serial nos. 215 to 249. It has been submitted in the writ application that the final gradation list dated 02.07.2010 by the State of Bihar has been prepared in complete violation and in contravention of Proviso Rule 35 of the State Forest Service Cadre Rules and even in case in which Direct and promotees are appointed on the same date as per the proviso of Rule 35 (2) that the promotees are to rank senior than the direct recruits. It has further been submitted that the appointments of persons directly recruited to the State Forest Service cadre on the basis of advertisement of 1987 was without there being sanctioned posts being available as the 133 sanctioned posts had already been filled up. Hence, the said appointments are on non sanctioned posts and hence not substantive appointments as defined by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Sinha-II & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in (2004) 10 SCC 734 . Being aggrieved by the publication of the final gradation list dated 02.07.2010 by the State of Bihar, the petitioner has challenged the same in the instant writ application. W.P. (S) No. 4749 of 2011 16. The aforesaid writ petition has been filed, praying inter alia, for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to implement and give effect to the final Seniority list of State Forest service Officers, as contained in letter No. 1684, dated 02.07.2010 issued under the signature of Deputy Secretary, Environment & Forest Department, Government of Bihar (Annexure-6), with respect to the Bihar Forest Service Officers, who have been allotted the Jharkhand cadre, upon bifurcation and for a direction upon the respondents to give Divisional charges to the petitioners and their batch-mates as per the order of seniority after implementation of final seniority list dated 02.07.2010, since the State of Bihar has already given Divisional charges to their counterparts in Bihar on the basis of the said final seniority list. 17. The factual matrix, as delineated in the writ petition, in a nutshell is that the petitioners are the direct recruits to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests, appointed by the State of Bihar in the year 1990 in Bihar Forest Services. After bifurcation of the State of Bihar, the petitioners have been allocated the Jharkhand cadre. After bifurcation, the State of Bihar published the Tentative Gradation list of Bihar Forest Service Officers allocated to Bihar as well as Jharkhand cadre vide letter dated 04.08.2003 and sought objections from the officers concerned and the said Tentative Gradation list could not be finalized. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6565 of 1999, Sanjay Kumar Sinha II Vs. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6565 of 1999, Sanjay Kumar Sinha II Vs. State of Bihar and others quashed the Final Gradation list dated 24.07.1989 of B.F.S. officers of erstwhile Bihar vide order dated 31.05.2004 and directed the Respondent State of Bihar to issue fresh Seniority list in accordance with the Judgment. The Government of Jharkhand, Department of Forest vide its letter dated 30.11.2004 published its first ever Tentative Gradation list of 128 B.F.S. Officers working in Jharkhand as on 01.06.2004, in the light of the Tentative Gradation list published on 04.08.2003 by the Government of Bihar. It has been submitted that the petitioners and their batch mates filed a writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 6629 of 2005, challenging the illegality and irregularity in the appointment/promotion of different batches of A.C.F.s and the Tentative gradation list dated 30.11.2004 issued by the State of Jharkhand and the Hon’ble Court vide order dated 14.07.2006, declined to interfere in the issue of illegality in appointment/promotion of A.C.F.s on the ground of delay, however, directed the state Government to publish the final gradation list in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6565 of 1999 and the L.P.A. No. 597 of 2006, Niranjan Prasad Deo and others Vs. State of Jharkhand and others has been filed, challenging the part of the order dated 14.07.2006, as passed in the W.P. (S) No. 6629 of 2005 and the said L.P.A. has been dismissed on 11.07.2011. It is submitted that the Government of Jharkhand, Department of Forest vide its letter dated 04.10.2007 published the Final Gradation list of B.F.S. officers of Jharkhand cadre and the said Final Gradation list comprises a rider as Note (3), which proclaims that “it (Gradation list) would be affected by the action taken by the Government of Bihar, Department of Environment & Forest in the light of the judgment dated 31.05.2004, passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6565 of 2009. The Government of Bihar as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and on the basis of the recommendation of the Enquiry Committee and as per the provisions of B.F.S. Rules, 1953 and the relevant circulars, published the Final Gradation list vide letter dated 02.07.2010. The Government of Bihar as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and on the basis of the recommendation of the Enquiry Committee and as per the provisions of B.F.S. Rules, 1953 and the relevant circulars, published the Final Gradation list vide letter dated 02.07.2010. It has been submitted that the petitioners and their batch mates have filed several representations right from April, 2010 to till date, to the Government of Jharkhand to implement the Tentative/Final Seniority list dated 02.07.2010 published by the State of Bihar on the basis of the precedence of preparing Tentative Gradation list 2004 of Jharkhand but the State of Jharkhand is merely dilly dallying the matter for which the petitioners left with no other efficacious, alternative and speedy remedy have been constrained to approach this Court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of their grievances. 18. In W.P. (S) No. 6473 of 2006, Arun Kumar Singh and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & others, W.P. (S) No. 1704 of 2010, Kali Kinker & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., W.P. (S) No. 1845 of 2010, Premjit Anand & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and others challenge have been made to the tentative seniority list dated 30.11.2004 and final seniority list dated 02.07.2010 issued by the State of Bihar and not to implement it in the State of Jharkhand and not to disturb the final seniority list dated 04.10.2007 issued by the State of Jharkhand. 19. In W.P. (S) No. 4754 of 2010, Ramesh Prasad Singh & ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & ors., W.P. (S) No. 4749 of 2011, Ashok Kumar Gupta & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & ors and W.P. (S) No. 2543 of 2012, Surendra Prasad Suman & ors Vs. State of Jharkhand & ors. have been filed by 1990 direct A.C.F.s challenging the final seniority list dated 04.10.2007, issued by the State of Jharkhand and for implementing the final seniority list dated 02.07.2010 issued by the State of Bihar in the State of Jharkhand in accordance with condition as note No. 3 of Jharkhand's final seniority list dated 04.10.2007. 20. In remaining two writ applications, W.P. (S) No. 3583 of 2007, Tarak Nath & ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & ors., and W.P. (S) No. 765 of 2009, Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors. 20. In remaining two writ applications, W.P. (S) No. 3583 of 2007, Tarak Nath & ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & ors., and W.P. (S) No. 765 of 2009, Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors. have been filed by the 1990 direct ACFs challenging the final seniority list dated 04.10.2007 issued by the State of Jharkhand and to implement the final seniority list dated 02.07.2010, issued by the State of Bihar in the State of Jharkhand in accordance with condition as note no. 03 of Jharkhand's final seniority list dated 04.10.2007 and have challenged the deemed regularisation of 1988 and 1989 illegal appointees A.C.F.s. 21. Before adverting to the rival contentions of the parties, it would be apposite to refer to certain relevant provisions of the Bihar Forest Rules, 1953. Bihar Forest Rules, 1953 were made in exercise of the provision of Article 309 of the Constitution of India by notification dated 1.7.1947. 22. The relevant provisions of the Bihar Forest Rules, 1953 have been reproduced herein below : - “Rule 2 (iii) 'Member of the service' means a person appointed to service under the provisions of these rules. (vii) the service means the Bihar forest service. Rule 3 The appointments of the service shall ordinarily made by (a) Direct recruitment in accordance with rules in Part II of these rules by a competitive examination to be held by the commission and (aa) The range officer of forest, who passes the ranger course securing honours shall be eligible for admission to second years of SFS course................They shall be treated as direct recruit to the Bihar forest service cadre. (b) by promotion in accordance with the rules contained in part V of selected rangers - (ii) who have long service, tried ability and probility irrespective of their educational qualification: Rule 4 The Government shall decide to time the number of vacancies to be filled by direct recruitment and/ or by promotion, respectively. Rule 5 The Commission shall announce in each year in such manner as they think fit, the number of vacancies in the service to be filled by direct recruitment on the result of a competitive examination and shall invite application from candidates eligible under rule 6. The competitive examination will be conducted by the commission. Rule 24 No recommendations except those invited in form of the application will be taken into consideration. The competitive examination will be conducted by the commission. Rule 24 No recommendations except those invited in form of the application will be taken into consideration. Any attempt on the part of a candidate to obtain support for this application by other means will disqualify him for appointment. Rule 26 A consolidated result of the examination will be prepared by the Commission and......................” Rule 35 Seniority of officers appointed to the service shall be determined with reference to the date their substantive appointment to the service. (ii) in case where appointment are made to the service both by direct recruitment and promotion of selected rangers at the same time the promoted member of the service shall be senior to the members directly recruited; and (iii) the seniority inter se of rangers on substantive appointment to the service by promotion at the same time shall be their seniority inter se held as rangers. 23. Mr. Binod Kanth, learned senior counsel being assisted by Mr. Bhanu Kumar in W.P. (S) No. 2543 of 2012 has urged with vehemence that the impugned Gradation List dated 04.10.2007 published by the State of Jharkhand so far as it relates to placement of the names of the petitioners vis-a-vis Respondent Nos. 6 to 8 being contrary to the ratio laid down in Civil Appeal No. 6565 of 1999 ought to be quashed. Accordingly, writ of mandamus be issued commanding upon the respondents to give effect to the final gradation list published by the State of Bihar dated-02.07.2010. 24. The learned Senior counsel submits that the respondents being illegal and spurious appointees of 1988 and 1989 in the second and third phase pursuant to 1985 Advertisement, who were appointed after the advertised vacancy filled up in 1987 and the respondent/promotees of 1991 and 1992 given promotion with retrospective effect from 30.03.1990. 25. Learned senior counsel has submitted that the appointment of ACFs on 13.04.1988 and 10.08.1989 have been done de hors the Rule and the appointment of the said 18 Direct recruits have been declared as rank illegal appointments by the Hon'ble Single Judge of Patna High Court reported in 2013 (2) PLJR 316 , Hem Kant Roy & Ors. Vs. The Govt. of Bihar & Anr. Learned senior counsel has referred to paragraph nos. Vs. The Govt. of Bihar & Anr. Learned senior counsel has referred to paragraph nos. 67, 68, 71, 72, 79 and 80 of the said judgment, wherein, the learned Single Judge has held that the appointments, which were made on 13.04.1988 and 10.08.1989 are not only illegal but non-est. As such, learned senior counsel submits that although the Single Judge of Jharkhand High Court in the order dated 14.07.2006 declined to interfere in the appointment done by the Notification dated 13.04.1988 and 10.08.1989 on the ground of delay in challenging the appointments but the Hon'ble Single Judge has directed the Respondent-State of Jharkhand and Bihar to finalise the Seniority list of the State Forest Officer as per the terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Kumar Sinha II Case. Learned senior counsel has submitted that the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.07.2011 in L.P.A. No. 597 of 2006 has supported the order of the learned Single Judge in the matter of challenging the appointment of 18 ACFs on the ground of delay in challenge but the Hon'ble Division Bench took cognizance of the fact that the final seniority list dated 02.07.2010 issued by the State of Bihar, therefore, the L.P.A. has become infructuous but the issue as to whether the final seniority list dated 02.07.2010 published by the State of Bihar is binding on the State of Jharkhand or not was held to be a fresh cause of action, therefore, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners. Learned senior counsel further submits that the Hon'ble Single Judge or the Division Bench have not decided the case on merits and declined to interfere with the appointment of respondents only on the ground of laches since the Court has not gone into the merits of their appointment. 26. Since the merit of the appointment has not been decided, as such, the issue regarding the legality of appointment of the respondents is hit by the doctrine of sub silentio and in that view of the matter, principles of res judicata will never apply. 27. In this respect the learned senior counsel for the petitioner has referred to the following decisions :- (i) 1996 (1) PLJR 815 , (ii) (1991) 4 SCC 139 and (iii) (1989) 3 SCC 433 . 28. The Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Shree Goshala Vs. 27. In this respect the learned senior counsel for the petitioner has referred to the following decisions :- (i) 1996 (1) PLJR 815 , (ii) (1991) 4 SCC 139 and (iii) (1989) 3 SCC 433 . 28. The Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Shree Goshala Vs. State of Bihar reported in 1996 (1) PLJR 815 has decided the issue on the question of sub silentio and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. and another Vs. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. and another reported in (1991) 4 SCC 139 has decided the issue on sub silentio. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pujari Bai Vs. Madan Gopal reported in (1989) 3 SCC 433 has decided the issue on the ground of res judicata. 29. Learned senior counsel further submits that the order of the Hon'ble Single Judge and the Division Bench relate to appointment but the question of issue of seniority has never been determined by this Court nor on the merits of the appointments of the respondents has been decided. The illegal and de hors the Rule appointees of 1988 and 1989 cannot be senior to 1990 direct recruits. So far as the illegal appointments of respondents appointees of 1988 and 1989 are concerned, the learned senior counsel has referred to (2013) 2 PLJR 316 , Hem Kant Roy & Ors. Vs. The Govt. of Bihar & Anr. wherein, the Hon'ble Patna High Court has decided the issue regarding the appointment of the 1988 and 1989 to be rank illegality. The learned senior counsel further submits that in para 2 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Sinha II Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2004) 10 SCC 734 , it has been held that all the formalities with regard to recruitment of direct recruits (in pursuance of advertisement issued by the Bihar Public Service Commission for filling up 40 permanent posts of the Assistant Conservator of Forests of 1985 recruitment were completed on 08.06.1987. The learned senior counsel by referring to the said paragraph has submitted that for all practical purposes, the recruitment process for filling up the aforesaid posts were completed on 08.06.1987 and the appointment made beyond the said date is de hors the Rules. The learned senior counsel has referred to (2009) 1 SCC 386 , Mukul Saikia Vs. The learned senior counsel by referring to the said paragraph has submitted that for all practical purposes, the recruitment process for filling up the aforesaid posts were completed on 08.06.1987 and the appointment made beyond the said date is de hors the Rules. The learned senior counsel has referred to (2009) 1 SCC 386 , Mukul Saikia Vs. State of Assam and ors wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the State cannot appoint more than the number of posts advertised and it has been inter alia, held that the currency of the Select List had expired as soon as the number of posts advertised are filled up, therefore, the appointments beyond the number of posts advertised would amount to filling up future vacancies and said course is impermissible under law. 30. Learned senior counsel has also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2010) 2 SCC 637 , Rakhi Ray and ors Vs. High Court of Delhi, wherein paragraphs 7, 12, 13, 22 and 24 have been referred to. In paragraph 12, it has been held that “in view of the above, the law can be summarised to the effect that any appointment made beyond the number of vacancies advertised, is without jurisdiction, being violative of article 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution of India, thus, a nullity, in executable and unenforceable in law. In case, the vacancies notified stand filled up, process of selection comes to an end. Waiting list etc. cannot be used as a reservoir, to fill up the vacancy which comes into existence after the issuance of notification/advertisement. The unexhausted select list/waiting list becomes meaningless and cannot be pressed in service any more. 31. Learned Senior counsel has further referred to (2010) 10 SCC 63 , Dr. M.S. Patil Vs. Gulbarga university and others, and paragraphs 16, 17 and 18 of the said judgment appears to be relevant, which reads as under : - “16. But at this stage once again a strong appeal is made to let the appellant continue on the post where he has already worked for over 17 years. Mr. M.S. Patil Vs. Gulbarga university and others, and paragraphs 16, 17 and 18 of the said judgment appears to be relevant, which reads as under : - “16. But at this stage once again a strong appeal is made to let the appellant continue on the post where he has already worked for over 17 years. Mr. Patil, learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellant, submitted that throwing him out after more than 17 years would be very hard and unfair to him since now he cannot even go back to the college where he worked as lecturer and from where he had resigned to join to this post. 17. We are unimpressed. In service law there is no place for the concepts of adverse possession or holding over. Helped by some University authorities and the gratuitous circumstances of the interim orders passed by the Court and the delay in final disposal of the matter, the appellant has been occupying the post, for all these years that lawfully belonged to someone else. The equitable considerations are, thus, actually against him rather than in his favour. 18. The matter can also be looked at from a slightly different angle. It is noted above how the appellant was able to secure the appointment and how he managed to continue on the post..............” 32. Learned senior counsel has also referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa and ors. Vs. Mamta Mohanty reported in (2011) 3 SCC 436 , wherein paragraphs 35, 36, 37, 38, 41, 56, 57, 59, 64, 65 and 68 have been referred to. 33. Learned senior counsel has also referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Upendra Narayan Singh & Ors. reported in (2009) 5 SCC 65 and the said judgment appears to be relevant, which observed as under :- “The appointment made in year 1991 on ad hoc basis in Animal and Husbandry Department, Government of Bihar without making advertisement are in violation of constitutional mandates of article 14 and 16 and are illegal and hence the cancellation of those appointments after 10-11 years in 2001 were found as per the law.” 34. Learned senior counsel has referred to the judgment of the Patna High Court reported in 2013 (2) PLJR 316 , wherein, the Hon'ble Patna High Court has held that the appointment of 18 Direct recruits were declared rank illegal, therefore, the contention of the learned senior counsel is that the appointment of 18 illegal and de hors appointees could not have been regularized. Learned senior counsel has further submitted that the appointment of 18 ACFs are de hors the Rule and completely illegal and these illegal appointments can not be regularised as per the law decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.N. Nanjundappa Vs. T. Thimmaiah and another reported in (1972) 1 SCC 409 and the said judgment appears to be relevant, which observed as under :- “The State Government has no power to make a rule for regularising an appointment under Article 309 of the Constitution, since the Article speak of rules for appointment and general conditions of service, Regularization of appointment by stating that “notwithstanding any rules the appointment is regularized” strikes at the root of existing rules prescribing promotion, selection or competitive examination as methods of recruitment. Therefore the regularisation was in violation of the Article.” 35. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the de hors the rule and illegal appointee cannot be given seniority over and above the regular/substantive appointee. In this respect, learned senior counsel submits has referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Sinha II Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2004) 10 SCC 734 , wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held for fixing the seniority of de hors the Rule appointee vis-a-vis regular/substantive appointee is as follows :- 36. It is a settled law that the appointment made contrary to the rules are merely fortuitous and do not confer benefit of seniority on the appointees over and above the regular/substantive appointees. Hence, the de hors the Rule 18 appointees and 13.04.1988 and 10.08.1989 cannot be conferred the benefit of seniority on the appointees over and above the regular/substantive appointees of 30.03.1990 pursuant to advertisement dated 19.12.1987. Learned senior counsel has further referred to the law decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhupendra Nath Hazarika and others Vs. Hence, the de hors the Rule 18 appointees and 13.04.1988 and 10.08.1989 cannot be conferred the benefit of seniority on the appointees over and above the regular/substantive appointees of 30.03.1990 pursuant to advertisement dated 19.12.1987. Learned senior counsel has further referred to the law decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhupendra Nath Hazarika and others Vs. State of Assam and others reported in (2013) 2 SCC 516 and para 59 of the said judgment appears to be relevant, which reads as under : - “59. As has been observed by the learned single Judge which has been accepted by the Division Bench, there is no decision to relax the rules in favour of the Special batch recruits.....................It is to be borne in mind that if a particular rule empowers the authority to throw all the rules overboard in all possibility, it may not withstand close scrutiny of Article 14 of the Constitution. Be that it may, no decision was taken to relax the rules and, the concept of deemed relaxation is not attracted and, therefore, the relief claimed by the special batch recruits has no legs to stand upon.” 37. Even otherwise, Bihar Forest Rules, 1953 or any other rules/regulations or circular of the State of Bihar or Jhakhand does not confer any power on the State to regularise the appointment of the appointees whose appointment is made de hors the rule. 38. Learned senior counsel further submits that the 18 de hors the Rule and illegal appointees have been rightly placed in final seniority list dated 02.07.2010 at Serial No. 321-338 below all regular appointees and the final Seniority list dated 02.07.2010 has been issued in consonance with the order of this Court in Sanjay Kumar Sinha II Case (supra). Learned senior counsel further submits that so far as jurisdiction of the parent State and High Court in the matter related to prior to bifurcation of the State, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided the law for the jurisdiction of the parent State, after bifurcation of the State, in the matter concerning prior to the State bifurcation in the case of State of Uttarakhand Vs. Sidharth Srivastava reported in (2003) 9 SCC 336 . 39. Sidharth Srivastava reported in (2003) 9 SCC 336 . 39. Since the State of Bihar, within its jurisdiction, issued the final gradation list dated 02.07.2010 of all officers of Bihar Forest Service Cadre appointed by State of Bihar between 1973 to 1995 including all 142 officers who have been allotted to Jharkhand State on 11.06.2003, after division of the Bihar State and creation of Jharkhand State on 15.11.2000. Moreover, this final seniority dated 02.07.2010 had been issued by the State of Bihar as per the direction and the terms decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Sinha II Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2004) 10 SCC 734 and as per the orders of the learned Single Bench of the Court in W.P. (S) No. 6629 of 2005. The State of Bihar had not included any officers, in the final seniority list dated 02.07.2010, appointed by the State of Jharkhand after bifurcation of the State on 15.11.2010, so the State of Bihar had issued the final gradation list dated 02.07.2010 of all officers, appointed before 15.01.2000, within its jurisdiction. 40. Learned senior counsel submits that regarding deletion of 10 names of illegal appointees, who are, in Jharkhand from the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Patna High Court but the same does not change the ratio of judgment delivered by the Patna High Court as per the jurisdiction of Court decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court, these respondents can approach to the Patna High Court for their grievance to be redressed. But the State of Jharkhand had been respondent in matters filed before the Patna High Court. Since the direction to the respondents was to implement, to act, accordingly, therefore, the State of Jharkhand cannot implement the gradation list prepared by the State of Bihar. All the more, when the State of Jharkhand has taken consistent stand that it will be governed by the State of Bihar. Moreover, the so-called final gradation list dated 04.10.2007 has been prepared by the Jharkhand with rider No. 3 contained therein, whereby it had made clear that it would be affected by the Gradation list prepared by the State of Bihar. 41. Moreover, the so-called final gradation list dated 04.10.2007 has been prepared by the Jharkhand with rider No. 3 contained therein, whereby it had made clear that it would be affected by the Gradation list prepared by the State of Bihar. 41. Learned Senior counsel further submits that the Final Gradation list dated 02.07.2010 issued by the parent State of Bihar is binding on the State of Jharkhand in view of the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Courts of Jharkhand and Patna and as per the discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs and as per the condition no. 3 stipulated by the State of Jharkhand in the Final seniority list dated 04.10.2007 and commitments in various Affidavits made by the State of Jharkhand in this Court and therefore, the final seniority dated 02.07.2010 is binding in the State of Jharkhand and the Gradation list so prepared will be free from any ambiguity. 42. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel being assisted by Mr. Saurav Arun and Mr. Deepak Kumar Dubey in W.P. (S) No. 1704 of 2010 and W.P. (S) No. 1845 of 2010 in his inimitable style have urged for quashing the provisional seniority list dated 31.03.2010 (Annexure 6) issued by the Respondent No. 3 so far it relates to the petitioners whose names stood at serial nos. 321 and 335 as the State of Bihar having no jurisdiction to prepare the provisional or final seniority list in respect to the petitioners who are the employee of the State of Jharkhand after bifurcation of the State and that too after final cadre allocation in terms of Section 72 of the Bihar Re-organization Act, 2000. 43. The learned senior counsel submits that the petitioners were appointed as Assistant Conservator of Forest through direct recruitment by way of examination conducted by the BPSC in the year 1985 and appointed on 10.08.1987 and 13.04.1988 respectively and at present holding the post of D.F.O. and final cadre allocation list has been prepared on 11.06.2003 by the Central Government where the names of petitioners stood at serial nos. 118 and 113 and both the petitioners have been allocated to the State of Jharkhand. The tentative seniority list were published by the State of Jharkhand, wherein, the name of the petitioners stood at Serial Nos. 118 and 113 and both the petitioners have been allocated to the State of Jharkhand. The tentative seniority list were published by the State of Jharkhand, wherein, the name of the petitioners stood at Serial Nos. 57 and 51 after final cadre allocation, which shows the State of Bihar has no jurisdiction over the employee of the State of Jharkhand. The service of the petitioner no. 1 has been confirmed on 13.10.2007 and the service of the petitioner no. 2 has been confirmed on 25.02.2005 by the State of Jharkhand, which shows that the Bihar has no jurisdiction after bifurcation. Petitioner no.1 and the petitioner no. 2 has been granted 1st A.C.P. on completion of 12 years of service by the State of Jharkhand after the bifurcation of the State and after final cadre allocation, which shows that the State of Bihar has no jurisdiction over the employees of the State of Jharkhand. The learned senior counsel further submits that the final seniority list was also prepared by the State of Jharkhand where the names of petitioners stood at serial Nos. 57 and 51 respectively, which shows that the State of Bihar has no jurisdiction after final cadre allocation and hence, the final seniority list was published by the State of Jharkhand. It is further urged that the State of Bihar, all of sudden, issued the provisional seniority list and the names of the petitioners was also inducted in the seniority list at serial nos. 335 and 331 respectively. The same is illegal as Bihar has no jurisdiction to prepare the seniority list to the employee, who are serving and working in the State of Jharkhand. 44. It has been further submitted that the Resolution by the State of Jharkhand dated 26.07.2004, in which it has been held that the matter, which was decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in respect to the seniority over the direct appointee and promotee of 1987 batch and the petitioners were not appointee of 1987 batch, rather the appointee of 1988-89 and that their issue was never subject to any court nor they are party before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, hence as per that resolution, the said judgment is not applicable in the case of the petitioners. The learned senior counsel has referred to Section 72 of the Bihar Reorganization Act. 45. The learned senior counsel has referred to Section 72 of the Bihar Reorganization Act. 45. The learned senior counsel further sought for quashing of the final seniority list published by the State of Bihar on 02.07.2010 as contained in I.A. No. 2636 of 2010 for amendment (Annexure-9 to the said affidavit) and as the State of Bihar having no jurisdiction to prepare and publish the final gradation list because the petitioners are no more employee of the State of Bihar after bifurcation that too after creation of the State of Jharkhand and final cadre allocation and confirmation of the service by the State of Bihar. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners were appointed as the Assistant Conservator of Forests and the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Section 72 of the Bihar Re-organization Act, 2000. 46. During course of his submissions, the learned senior counsel has referred to the decision in the case of Arvind Vijay Bilung Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in 2001 (3) Jhr CR 155 (Jhr). 47. Learned senior counsel has referred to the counter affidavit filed by the State of Bihar in W.P. (S) No. 5125 of 2004, wherein, it has been stated that the appointment made in terms of examination held in 1985 by BPSC and subsequently appointment made in 1987-89 under the prescribed norms and there is no illegality and completely legal and the counter affidavit filed by the State of Bihar in L.P.A. No. 597 of 2006 in paragraph no. 8, the State of Bihar has also stated that the appointment were made in accordance with law from the merit list prepared by the BPSC by increasing the number of vacancy and after approval from the competent authority and also against the vacancy occurred due to non joining of some of the candidate, hence, there is no illegality in the appointment. 48. In order to buttress his submissions, learned senior counsel has referred to the following decisions :- (i) AIR 2003 SC 4062 , paragraphs 17, 19, 28, 29 and 31. (ii) 2001 (3) JCR 155 paragraph 33 (iii) (2003) 4 Supreme 379 49. Learned senior counsel has referred to Rule 12 of the Jharkhand Service Code. 48. In order to buttress his submissions, learned senior counsel has referred to the following decisions :- (i) AIR 2003 SC 4062 , paragraphs 17, 19, 28, 29 and 31. (ii) 2001 (3) JCR 155 paragraph 33 (iii) (2003) 4 Supreme 379 49. Learned senior counsel has referred to Rule 12 of the Jharkhand Service Code. In this respect the learned senior counsel for the petitioner has referred to and relied upon the following decisions :- (i) AIR 1990 SC 1607 para 44 (ii) AIR 1981 SC 597 para 4 50. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned senior counsel has assiduously argued, that as disclosed from various counter affidavits that out of the 133 sanctioned posts of Bihar Forest Service, the quota for direct recruits is 66 and the quota for promoted officers is 67. The State of Jharkhand is bound to accept only those officers on post, who were at the time of bifurcation of the State of Bihar were within 133 sanctioned posts. As per the counter affidavit filed by the State of Bihar in W.P. (S) No. 6629 of 2005, it is amply clear that in the year 1987 (upto 31.12.1987), there were only 30 direct officers working in Bihar Forest Service as ACFs in the direct quota of 66 officers. A requisition of 40 vacancies were sent to BPSC in the year 1985 and the selection procedure against these vacancies was completed in 1987. Out of these 40 vacancies sent to BPSC in 1985, only 39 selected candidates were appointed as ACFs in 1987 i.e. on 14.12.1987 as 1987 direct batch. Thus, even in the 1987 direct batch 3 candidates were appointed in excess of the quota of 66 for direct recruits. After the appointment of the 1987 direct batch, 10 candidates in the year 1988 and 8 candidates in the year 1989 were again appointed as ACFs from the same list of 1985 vacancies i.e. the 1987 direct batch. Again in the year 1990, 40 candidates were appointed on the posts of ACFs, against the vacancies sent to BPSC in the yea 1987. These 40 candidates were appointed are called the 1990 direct batch. Again in the year 1990, 40 candidates were appointed on the posts of ACFs, against the vacancies sent to BPSC in the yea 1987. These 40 candidates were appointed are called the 1990 direct batch. Thus, it becomes clear that the following appointments made in the Bihar Forest Service as ACFs, i.e. 3 candidates in 1987 direct batch, 10 candidates in the year 1988, 8 candidates in the year 1989 and 40 candidates in the year 1990 i.e. a total of 61 candidates were all in excess of the sanctioned quota strengths of 66 candidates for direct recruits and thus, their appointment is not against a substantive vacancy and hence, their services are not substantive. Thus, keeping in view the quota of 67 sanctioned posts for promoted officers, seniority is to be considered only from the respective date on which the respective quota is available. Based upon the fact a list has been prepared and filed before this Hon'ble Court and from that list, it becomes evident that the present petitioner get his respective quota for the promotion to the post of ACF w.e.f. 01.01.1998 i.e. before the date of bifurcation. On the other hand, till date, there is no vacancy available in the sanctioned strength of 67 for direct recruits for the 61 aforesaid direct appointee ACFs as non-existent posts in the year 1987, 1988, 1989 and 1990. 51. During the course of arguments, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6565 of 1999, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed, which are as follows :- a. In the absence of the posts, no appointments could be made. Such appointment are mere fortuitous and cannot confer the benefit of seniority from the date of appointment. b. In absence of availability of sanctioned posts of ACF, any notification for appointment of petitioners as ACF will be a nullity in the eyes of law. c. The Hon'ble Court accepted the submission filed by the State Govt. that the sanctioned strength of the Bihar Forest Service as 277, states that “it is at best a decision which remains to be implemented.” Further the order states that “as the heading of the resolution suggests, it is merely determination of the cadre strength of the posts of ACFs. that the sanctioned strength of the Bihar Forest Service as 277, states that “it is at best a decision which remains to be implemented.” Further the order states that “as the heading of the resolution suggests, it is merely determination of the cadre strength of the posts of ACFs. It is a decision as to what should be the cadre strength and creation of posts. Nothing has been shown to suggest that requisite formalities regarding creation of posts has taken place. The resolution therefore, cannot be taken as creation of post. d. In order to become a member of the service the person concerned has to satisfy at least two conditions first appointment has to be to the post in service according to the rules and within the quota to a substantive vacancy. e. It is settled law that appointments made contrary to the rules are merely fortuitous on the appointees over and above the regular/substantive appointees to the services. 52. Learned senior counsel submitted that therefore, at this stage, the seniority of the respondents i.e. those of 1990 direct appointees fixed by the Govt. of Jharkhand, is correct and they have been rightly placed below the petitioners. In case of direct appointees and promotees, the seniority is to be determined in terms and in accordance with Rule 35 where the promoted members of the service shall rank senior to the members directly recruited. 53. It is further submitted that due to the delay in issuing the promotion orders, as per proviso of Rule 3, the petitioner had to be adjusted in the vacancies of 1989 therefore, the Government consciously took a decision to promote the petitioner and other promotees w.e.f. 30.03.1990, which was the date of the appointment of 1990 batch of direct recruitment. The clear intention of the Government was to put the petitioner and other promotees higher in the seniority list than the direct recruits. The order of promotion of the petitioner dated 18.07.1991 is very clear, namely, that the petitioner is promoted w.e.f. 30.03.1990. In such circumstance, the petitioner should be treated, as having become member of the service on 30.03.1990. There has been no challenge to the said promotion order and the said promotion order should have been given effect to. At present, the issue was seniority on the basis of 133 sanctioned strength as per settled law. 54. In such circumstance, the petitioner should be treated, as having become member of the service on 30.03.1990. There has been no challenge to the said promotion order and the said promotion order should have been given effect to. At present, the issue was seniority on the basis of 133 sanctioned strength as per settled law. 54. The learned senior counsel submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide judgment dated 31.05.2004 in C.A. No. 6565 of 1999, Sanjay Kumar Sinha II and Others Vs. State of Bihar & others ruled that directly recruited Assistant Conservator of Forests of 1987 batch will be senior to promoted officers of 1987 batch. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to pass following order in the aforesaid matter : - “The writ petition succeeds on the question of seniority. The final gradation list dated 24.07.1989 is quashed and the State Government is directed to issue fresh gradation list fixing the seniority of appellants over the respondents in accordance of this judgment.” 55. The learned senior counsel submits that in the light of the judgment passed on 31.05.2004 in Civil Appeal No. 6565 of 1999, Sanjay Kumar Sinha II and Others Vs. State of Bihar & others, the Forest & Environment Department, Government of Jharkhand vide Resolution No. 2920 dated 26.07.2004 requested the Government of Bihar to take decision regarding regularisation of services of promoted officers of 1987 batch. This judgment was exclusively related with the seniority of direct recruit officers of 1987 batch and promoted officers of 1987 batch. None of the direct recruit or promoted officers of 1988, 1989 or 1990 batch were neither petitioner/intervenor nor respondent before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 56. The learned senior counsel submits that the petitioner of C.A. No. 6565 of 1999, Sanjay Kumar Sinha II filed Contempt petition No. 2 of 2005 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court for non compliance of the order dated 31.5.2004 passed in Civil Appeal No. 6565 of 1999. The Government of Jharkhand produced tentative gradation list issued vide letter dated 30.11.2004 before the Hon'ble Apex Court in compliance of the order of the order and the Hon'ble Apex Court dropped the contempt proceeding as the order was complied by publishing tentative gradation list. 57. The Government of Jharkhand produced tentative gradation list issued vide letter dated 30.11.2004 before the Hon'ble Apex Court in compliance of the order of the order and the Hon'ble Apex Court dropped the contempt proceeding as the order was complied by publishing tentative gradation list. 57. The learned senior counsel further submits that some of the officers of 1987 promotee batch filed W.P. (S) No. 5125 of 2004 in the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court challenging the appointment of two direct recruit officers of 1987 batch (1st list) and all direct officers of 1988 and 1989 (2nd and 3rd list) and the Government of Bihar in its counter affidavit has made following submission regarding the respondents (direct recruits of 1987, 1988 and 1989 batch) of this writ petition in para 9:- “The appointment of ACF made in the year 1985 by the BPSC was absolutely according to the prescribed norms and appointments so made in the year 1987, 1988 and 1989 were completely legal.” 58. The learned senior counsel submits that the aforesaid writ petition has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court vide order dated 21.09.2010 and the direct recruit officers of 1990 batch filed W.P. (S) No. 6629 of 2005 before this Court in which they challenged the appointment and seniority of direct recruit officers of 1987 batch (1st list) and all direct officers of 1988 and 1989 batch (2nd and 3rd list). The Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court vide its order dated 14.07.2006 has relied upon the decision rendered in the case of Roshan Lal Vs. International Airport Authority of India reported in AIR 1981 SC 597 and refused to interfere with the order of promotion and/or appointments of respondents and others which were issued 16 to 21 years back. The claim of seniority of 1990 direct recruit officers over 1987, 1988 & 1989 direct recruits were rejected and the Court directed the State Government to publish final Gradation list within four months. As per the order passed in W.P. (S) No. 6629 of 2005, the Jharkhand Forest Department constituted a high level Establishment Committee under the Chairmanship of Principal Secretary, Forest & Environment Deptt. and on the recommendation of the Committee, the Jharkhand Forest Department published the Final Gradation list vide letter dated 04.07.2007. As per the order passed in W.P. (S) No. 6629 of 2005, the Jharkhand Forest Department constituted a high level Establishment Committee under the Chairmanship of Principal Secretary, Forest & Environment Deptt. and on the recommendation of the Committee, the Jharkhand Forest Department published the Final Gradation list vide letter dated 04.07.2007. In this gradation list, the seniority of the direct recruit officers of 1987, 1988, 1989 and 1990 batch have been fixed from their respective date of appointments. The said final seniority list of A.C.F. (s) has been issued with 3 foot notes. 59. The learned senior counsel submits that again 1980 direct recruit ACFs preferred LPA No. 597 of 2006 before this Court against the order passed on 14.07.2006 in W.P. (S) No. 6629 of 2005 and the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court dismissed the LPA vide order dated 11.07.2011. It has further been submitted that the Bihar Government published a tentative gradation list vide letter dated 31.03.2010 in violation of Section 72 of the Bihar Re-organization Act, 2000. 60. The learned senior counsel has referred to the counter filed by the State of Jharkhand on 29.10.2010 and in para 4, it has been submitted that the State Govt., has to act as per direction contained in W.P. (S) No. 2201 of 2001 Arvind Vijay Bilung Vs. State of Jharkhand and W.P. (S) No. 2692 of 2001 V.N. Mishra Vs. State of Bihar and others, meaning thereby that after bifurcation of Jharkhand State, any order of Bihar Government shall not be applicable in Jharkhand under Section 72 of the Bihar Re-organization Act, shall has the same provision. 61. It has been submitted by the learned senior counsel that in the order dated 31.05.2004 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6565 of 1999, it was observed that there were only 133 posts of ACFs available in the Bihar Forest Department. The appointments/promotion made thereafter, were against non existing posts as the Bihar Govt. had made appointments/promotion considering the ACF cadre strength being 277 as per the Notification and for their regularization, the Bihar Forest Department created shadow posts with the approval 'Prasashi Padwarg Samiti' and Bihar Cabinet. The shadow posts were created by name of the officers from their actual date of appointment/officiating on the post. 62. had made appointments/promotion considering the ACF cadre strength being 277 as per the Notification and for their regularization, the Bihar Forest Department created shadow posts with the approval 'Prasashi Padwarg Samiti' and Bihar Cabinet. The shadow posts were created by name of the officers from their actual date of appointment/officiating on the post. 62. The learned senior counsel has referred to the various cases of seniority of ACFs filed before the Hon'ble Patna High Court, namely, C.W.J.C. Nos. 6629 of 2009, 4855, 141 of 2008, 880 of 2008, 10925 & 11337 of 2010 and submitted that all these cases were tagged together and in these cases on 06.01.2011, interim judgment was passed, which is reproduced herein below : - “............and decision rendered by this Court will not affect any officer who was now migrated to the Jharkhand cadre. The decision of this Court, would affect parties of Bihar cadre, as presently constituted. Thus, in the second writ petition, no notice is required to be issued to officers, who were earlier in the Bihar Forest Service but have been allocated Jharkhand cadre” 63. It has further been submitted by the learned senior counsel that the matter regarding appointments made in the year 1988 and 1989 was examined by the Government of Bihar and found legal by the decision taken by the then Hon'ble Governor of Bihar. Moreover, the Hon'ble Patna High Court vide its order dated 02.07.2013 in LPA No. 168 of 2013 deleted the names of respondents, who have been allocated to Jharkhand cadre, meaning thereby the order of Patna High Court shall not be applicable on the officers of Jharkhand cadre. 64. The learned senior counsel further submits that the Jharkhand Government has submitted on 06.05.2013 before this Court in W.P. (S) No. 4754 of 2010 that it is not going to interfere with the current seniority list. The 1990 batch direct recruit officers preferred Civil Review No. 79 of 2011 against the order in L.P.A. No. 597 of 2006 and the Civil Review has already been dismissed by this Court on 03.02.2015. 65. Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P. (S) No. 765 of 2009 adopts the arguments in to of Mr. Binod Kanth, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P. (S) No. 2543 of 2012. 66. Mr. A. Allam, learned senior counsel appearing for the Respondent-State of Jharkhand and Mr. 65. Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P. (S) No. 765 of 2009 adopts the arguments in to of Mr. Binod Kanth, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P. (S) No. 2543 of 2012. 66. Mr. A. Allam, learned senior counsel appearing for the Respondent-State of Jharkhand and Mr. Saurav Arun and Mr. Deepak Kumar Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the private Respondents in W.P. (S) Nos. 2543 of 2012, 3583 of 2007, 765 of 2009 & 4749 of 2011 have strenuously urged that the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjay Kumar Sinha II case is neither in respect to the petitioner nor in respect to the contesting respondent nor either of them are the party before the Hon'ble Apex Court, rather, the said judgment is applicable only in respect to the 1987 batch direct recruitee Vs. promotee of 1987 batch and whereas, the Hon'ble Apex Court has already directed for regularising the services of all the promotees of 1987. The State of Jharkhand has been created w.e.f. 15.11.2000 and the services of the contesting respondents have been allocated State of Jharkhand on 16.06.2003 and after the re-organisation of the State and the cadre allocation, the appointing, disciplinary authority of the contesting respondents is State of Jharkhand and in terms of Arvind Vijay Bilung case (supra) decided by this Hon'ble Court affirmed up to the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shidhartha Srivastava Case (supra), the seniority list of State of Bihar in any case cannot be implemented in the State of Jharkhand in W.P. (S) Nos. 1704 & 1845 of 2010 as now the Bihar is not the controlling authority of the Jharkhand neither, the employees of the Jharkhand, even the petitioners are appointee of 1987 advertisements and the contesting respondents were appointee arising out in the advertisement of 1985. Hence, in any case, they can not claim seniority over the contesting respondents. Panel cannot be said to be lapsed in absence of Rule and all the judgments cited by the petitioners, has already been dealt with in LPA by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in LPA No. 597 of 2006. Hence, in any case, they can not claim seniority over the contesting respondents. Panel cannot be said to be lapsed in absence of Rule and all the judgments cited by the petitioners, has already been dealt with in LPA by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in LPA No. 597 of 2006. Hence, the entire argument of the petitioners is hit by the principles of res judicata and the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Patna High Court is not binding upon the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in terms of Section 25 and 27 of Bihar Re-organization Act read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India and also in terms of Section 72 of the Bihar Re-organization Act, 2000. The State of Bihar is not the controlling authority of the petitioners nor did the Hon'ble Apex Court ever direct State of Bihar to prepare the seniority list for the employees of the State of Jharkhand also. In order to buttress their submissions, learned counsel for the respondents have referred to and relied upon the decisions reported in AIR 1990 SC 1607 , paragraph 44; AIR 1991 SC 518 , paragraphs 2, 3 and 4; 1980 SUPP SCC 449 paragraph 4; (1991) 3 SCC 47 , paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 as well as in (2011) 2 SCC 734 . 67. Counter affidavit has been filed by the Respondent No. 4, in W.P. (S) No. 2543 of 2012, wherein, it has been, inter alia, stated that in compliance of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Civil Appeal No. 6565 of 1999, the State Government of Bihar published provisional seniority list on 30.03.2010 of officers working in State of Jharkhand and State of Bihar. 68. Mr. Rajiv Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent no. 13 has drawn attention of the court to paragraph nos. 3, 4, 6, 7 and 11 of the counter affidavit filed in W.P. (S) No. 6473 of 2006 and submits that the present writ petitioners do not deserve any indulgence, because their appointments were not made in pursuance to the Advertisement of 1985 in substantive capacity and as per the service Rule. On the contrary, the ratio of the Hon'ble Apex Court's judgment reported in (2004) 10 SCC 734 entitles the writ petitioners' appointments to be declared illegal and made against non-existing posts. 69. Mr. On the contrary, the ratio of the Hon'ble Apex Court's judgment reported in (2004) 10 SCC 734 entitles the writ petitioners' appointments to be declared illegal and made against non-existing posts. 69. Mr. Prabhash Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16 & 176 has filed a counter affidavit in W.P. (S) No. 6473 of 200 by adopting the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the other respondents. 70. Mr. Pankaj Kumar, J.C. to Mr. S.P. Roy, learned G.A. (Bihar) has submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had decided the inter se seniority of the officers of Bihar Forest Service appointed on the post of the Assistant Conservator of Forest in the year 1987 by promotion and direct recruitment. In deciding the said seniority, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had made important observations regarding the seniority and directed the State Government of Bihar to publish the seniority list of Bihar Forest Service afresh. In this regard it is relevant to mention that the appellants and respondents in Civil Appeal No. 6565 of 1999 included officers of Bihar Forest Service and the Officers who were allotted the State of Jharkhand. Therefore, in the published provisional list, names of all the officers, who were working in Bihar Forest Service Cadre in the year 1987 and those who were appointed in the cadre, were included. 71. It has further been submitted that the objections were invited on the provisional seniority list from the officers working in the State of Bihar and State of Jharkhand both. After receipt of objections a Committee under chairmanship of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Bihar was constituted which considered the objections received from the officers of Jharkhand and Bihar and submitted its report. The report of the Committee was considered by the State Government of Bihar and thereafter, the final gradation list of the officers of Joint Bihar Forest Service Cadre has been published by State of Bihar. 72. It has further been submitted that the final gradation list of Bihar Forest Service was challenged in number of writ petitions bearing C.W.J.C. Nos. 6629 of 2009, 4855, 141, 880 of 2008, 10925, 11160 & 11337 of 2010, which were heard as analogous cases. 72. It has further been submitted that the final gradation list of Bihar Forest Service was challenged in number of writ petitions bearing C.W.J.C. Nos. 6629 of 2009, 4855, 141, 880 of 2008, 10925, 11160 & 11337 of 2010, which were heard as analogous cases. The Hon'ble Patna High Court vide order dated 06.11.2012, has been pleased to dispose of these writ applications and upheld the final gradation list published by the State Government of Bihar with minor changes. This order has, however, been challenged in number of LPAs filed before the Hon'ble Patna High Court. In published final gradation list, the petitioners of the instant writ application have been placed senior to respondent nos. 6 to 8 in the writ petition. It has further been submitted that the seniority list published by State Government of Bihar the respondent nos. 6 to 7 of the writ application and their batch mates in Bihar have been placed junior to the petitioner of the writ application on the grounds that their services has been regularised on 03.10.2005 and hence, their seniority has been granted w.e.f. 03.10.2005 and the respondent no. 8 and other promotees were granted promotion from retrospective date i.e. 30.03.1990 though the notification of their promotion on post of Assistant Conservator of Forests was issued after 30.03.1990, the date on which notification of appointment of petitioner on post of Assistant Conservator of Forests was issued. Hence, the promotees were granted seniority w.e.f. date of their notification and placed junior to the petitioner of the writ application and not on grounds mentioned in the writ application. It has further been submitted that the respondent nos. 6 to 8 were not party in Civil Appeal No. 6565 of 1999 and hence no order has been passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to their appointment. 73. It has further been submitted that the respondent nos. 6 to 8 were not party in Civil Appeal No. 6565 of 1999 and hence no order has been passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to their appointment. 73. From the aforesaid pleadings of the writ petitions, counter affidavits of the State of Jharkhand as well as the State of Bihar and also private respondents, following issues emerge for determination and adjudication, which are briefly summarised herein below:- (i) Whether the direct appointee, appointed in pursuance to the advertisement of 1985 for the post of the Assistant Conservator of Forests published by the Bihar Public Service Commission, appointed after exhaustion of the first list in the year 1987 i.e. on 14.12.1987 and all direct officers of 1988 and 1989, who in the 2nd and 3rd list on the mistaken notion of 277 posts, which is against the existing 137 strength, as decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjay Kumar Sinha II and others Vs. State of Bihar & others is rank illegal, spurious, fortuitous and the said issue needs to be raked up? (ii) Whether the appointees of 1988-89, those whose services were regularised in the year 2005, can claim seniority from the date of their initial appointment? (iii) Whether the appointee numbering 40, appointed in pursuance to the advertisement of 1987 in the year 1990, are also appointed beyond the sanctioned cadre strength of 66 for direct recruits and whether their appointment were also fortuitous, so that they cannot claim seniority either against 1988-89 direct recruits or 1990 promotees? (iv) Whether the promotees appointed in 1990, although their cadre strength, but their vacancies arising in their cadre in every subsequent year, have a better claim for seniority, than those direct recruits of 1990 batch of A.C.F. (s), who were appointed beyond their cadre strength and there being no further vacancy against their cadre strength till date. If, at all, regularisation is to be made, when the promotees shall rank senior to the direct recruits, therefore, in the gradation list dated 04.10.2007, issued by the Government of Jharkhand, promotees have been placed higher than the direct recruits of 1990? If, at all, regularisation is to be made, when the promotees shall rank senior to the direct recruits, therefore, in the gradation list dated 04.10.2007, issued by the Government of Jharkhand, promotees have been placed higher than the direct recruits of 1990? (v) Whether, in view of the decisions of the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in L.P.A. No. 597 of 2006, decided on 11.07.2011, challenge can be made to the legality and propriety of the appointment made in 1988-89-90 or the seniority can be challenged? Issue Nos. (i), (iii) and (v): 74. For better appreciation and proper adjudication, it would be appropriate to take up the issue nos. (i), (iii) and (v) together, since these issues are interlinked and overlapping. 75. In W.P. (S) No. 6629 of 2005, Arvind Kumar & others Vs. State of Jharkhand and others, this Court vide order dated 14.07.2006 was not inclined to interfere with the orders of promotion/appointment of the respondents, who were appointed in pursuance to Notification dated 14.12.1987, Notification dated 13.04.1988 and Notification dated 10.08.1989. The aforesaid order being challenged in L.P.A. No. 597 of 2006 and the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 11.07.2011 has been pleased to observe that the challenge to the appointment has rightly been rejected by the learned Single Judge because of the reasons mentioned. Accordingly, L.P.A., preferred by the appellants has been dismissed. On perusal of the aforesaid judgment, it would be crystal clear that all those aforesaid judgments have given a quietus on the question of appointment. Moreover, the issue, which has already been settled, cannot be raked up at this belated stage, so as to unsettle the settled position. Hence, it can safely be held that the direct appointees, appointed in pursuance to the advertisement of 1985 for the post of the Assistant Conservator of Forests published by the Bihar Public Service Commission, appointed after exhaustion of the first list in the year 1987 i.e. on 14.12.1987 and all direct officers of 1988 and 1989, who in the 2nd and 3rd list on the mistaken notion of 277 posts, which is against the existing 137 strength, as decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjay Kumar Sinha II and others Vs. State of Bihar & others is not rank illegal, spurious, fortuitous and the said issue need not to be raked up after the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Civil Appeal No. 6565 of 1999 case and the decision of the Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 597 of 2006. And further the appointment of appointees numbering 40 in pursuance to the advertisement of 1987 in the year 1990 cannot be termed to be fortuitous. Issue No. (ii) & (iv): So far as issue nos. (ii) and (iv) are concerned, it is pertinent to mention that the order of the Hon'ble Patna High Court passed in C.W.J.C. No. 141 of 2008 has held that the Court cannot pass any order or issue notice in respect to the employees whose service has been allocated to the State of Jharkhand after cadre bifurcation. The reason of deleting the name of the present petitioners by the Hon'ble Patna High Court in writ application as well as in appeal is that the Hon'ble Patna High Court is well aware of the fact that in terms of Section 25 and 27 of Bihar Re-organization Act read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Hon'ble Patna High Court has no jurisdiction over the employee of the State of Jharkhand, hence, in that view of the matter, the seniority list of Bihar is not at all binding upon the State of Jharkhand nor the same is applicable since the State of Bihar is not the appointing nor disciplinary authority of the petitioners. 76. Before adverting to the aforesaid issue, it would be apposite to refer to Section 72 of the Bihar Re-organisation Act, 2000, which has been quoted herein below: “72. Provisions relating to services in Bihar and Jharkhand. - (1) Every person who immediately before the appointed day is serving in connection with the affairs of the existing State of Bihar shall, on and from that day provisionally continue to serve in connection with the affairs of the State of Bihar unless he is required, by general or special order of the Central Government to serve provisionally in connection with the affairs of the State of Jharkhand: Provided that no direction shall be issued under this section after the expiry of a period of one year from the appointed day. (2) As soon as may be after the appointed day, the Central Government shall, by general or special order, determine the successor State to which every person referred to in subsection (1) shall be finally allotted for service and the date with effect from which such allotment shall take effect or be deemed to have taken effect. (3) Every person who is finally allotted under the provisions of sub section (2) to a successor State shall, if he is not already serving therein be made available for serving in the successor State from such date as may be agreed upon between the Government concerned or in default of such agreement, as may be determined by the Central Government.” As per the provision, mentioned herein above, the State of Bihar have no jurisdiction to prepare and publish the final gradation list because of the established fact that after bifurcation, the petitioners are no more employees of the State of Bihar. 77. Furthermore, on perusal of the order dated 06.01.2011 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 6639 of 2009, Awadhesh Kumar Jha & Others Vs. State of Bihar and others with batch of writ petitions, the Hon'ble Court in relation to the writ petition being C.W.J.C. no. 4855 of 2008 has been pleased to observe that any decision rendered by the Court will not affect any officer, who has now migrated to the Jharkhand cadre. The Hon'ble Court further observed that the decision of this Court would affect parties of Bihar cadre, as presently constituted, thus in the second writ petition, no notice is required to be issued to the officers, who were earlier in the Bihar Forest Service, but have been allocated Jharkhand cadre. 78. On the question of jurisdiction, it would be apposite to refer to the decision in the case of Arvind Vijay Bilung Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in 2001 (3) Jhr CR 155 (Jhr) in particular paragraph 33 and the similar view has been reiterated in the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2003 SC 4062 . Paragraph 33 of the decision rendered in the case of Arvind Vijay Bilung (supra) reads as under : - “33. State of Jharkhand reported in 2001 (3) Jhr CR 155 (Jhr) in particular paragraph 33 and the similar view has been reiterated in the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2003 SC 4062 . Paragraph 33 of the decision rendered in the case of Arvind Vijay Bilung (supra) reads as under : - “33. In view of the provisions referred to and discussions as made above, the present State of Bihar having no jurisdiction to take disciplinary action against persons holding posts and office in the State of Jharkhand, like petitioners, the impugned orders of suspension containing in notification, dated May, 20, 2001 relating to petitioner Arvind Vijay Bilung and notification dated May 5, 2001 in respect to petitioner V.N. Mishra can not be upheld and they are set aside.” 79. Once the issue relating to appointment has already been decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court, though challenge by Sanjay Kumar Sinha II respondent-party no. 11 in W.P. (S) No. 765 of 2009. The Hon'ble Apex Court refused to quash the appointment. Moreover, the issue has already been dealt with by the learned Single Judge, which has been confirmed by the appellate court vide order dated 11th July, 2011 in L.P.A. No. 597 of 2006. So far as the issue relating to, as to whether the gradation list prepared by the Government of Bihar, dated 02.07.2010 would be binding upon the State of Jharkhand, I am of the considered view that in view of the aforesaid judgments, the State of Jharkhand would not be bound by the gradation list prepared by the State of Bihar. In reply to the specific query made by this Court to the learned senior counsel for the State of Jharkhand, Mr. A. Allam, who in his usual fairness, has submitted that the Gradation list prepared by the State of Jharkhand, dated 04.10.2007 is legally sustainable in the eye of law and if the same is modified, that would disturb the entire position after long lapse of years. On perusal of the gradation list of the State of Jharkhand, dated 04.10.2007, it is quite apparent that the gradation list has been prepared taking into consideration the initial date of appointment and in consonance with the Bihar Forest Service Rules, 1953. 80. In view of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, as discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, W.P. (S) Nos. 80. In view of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, as discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, W.P. (S) Nos. 6473 of 2006, 1704, 1845 & 4754 of 2010 are hereby allowed. Resultantly, W.P. (S) Nos. 4749 of 2011, 2543 of 2012, 3583 of 2007 & 765 of 2009 are hereby disallowed. Order accordingly.