ORDER : In this application the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to accept the joining of the petitioner in Ram Yagi Roy Sanskrit High School, Madhupur, Deoghar from the date of submission of the application of his joining i.e. on 06.12.2005. A further prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to consider the seniority of the petitioner as Headmaster being the senior most teacher of the aforesaid school and pay the salary and all consequential benefits attached to the said post. 2. The facts which have been narrated in the writ application reveals that the petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Teacher vide letter no. 16 dated 02.02.1979. In the year 1983 the new Management Committee replacing the old Managing Committee came into being which on the advice of the then Secretary terminated the service of the petitioner but he was reinstated on 07.12.1984 and since then he is discharging his duty. It has been stated in the writ application that the District Education Officer vide letter no. 1337 dated 29.11.2005 had requested the Director for recommendation of terminating the service of the respondent no. 5. It is the further case of the petitioner that on the direction of the authorities the petitioner was on examination duty from 28.11.2005 to 05.12.2005 at Balanand Sanskrit Middle School, Deoghar but when the petitioner came back to his school and submitted his joining the same was not accepted by the respondent no. 5 in collusion with the other respondents. Representations were submitted by the petitioner for redressal of his grievance but no positive outcome resulted in submission of such representation. The petitioner claims that the petitioner is the senior most teacher and is entitled to discharge his duty as a Headmaster instead of respondent no. 5 in the said school. 3. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned G.A. and Mr. Manindra Kr. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 5. 4. It has been submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that inspite of the petitioner running from pillar to post for acceptance of his joining the respondents have adopted adamant attitude towards the petitioner. Atanu Banerjee, learned G.A. and Mr. Manindra Kr. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 5. 4. It has been submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that inspite of the petitioner running from pillar to post for acceptance of his joining the respondents have adopted adamant attitude towards the petitioner. Learned senior counsel submits that no proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner and, therefore, in terms of the Rule 76 of the Jharkhand Service Code the petitioner shall be deemed to be in continuous service of the State Government. It has been submitted that the consequential benefits be made applicable to the petitioner from the date of filing of the writ application. Learned senior counsel submits that there is absolutely no basis or ground for the respondents to deny the petitioner his rightful claim and such circumstance goes to show how injustice has been meted out to the petitioner which requires to be corrected in the present writ application. 5. Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned G.A., has submitted that the petitioner had been unauthorizedly absent from duty and such circumstance disentitles the petitioner to the prayer made in the writ application. It has been submitted that the services of the petitioner was terminated in the year 1984 on account of being illegally appointed and subsequently the petitioner was appointed afresh as an Assistant Teacher and the said appointment was approved by the Bihar Sanskrit Board vide memo no. 864 dated 24.04.1985. It has been submitted that the petitioner cannot claim seniority on the basis of his first appointment since he was terminated and was subsequently give a fresh appointment and there being no continuity of service such seniority cannot be claimed. It has been stated that so far as the respondent no. 5 is concerned, the petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge his posting since upon the request of the petitioner he was posted on the basis of a mutual transfer. Learned counsel further submits that when the respondent no. 5 was taken into custody being implicated in a criminal case request was made not to terminate the service of the respondent no. 5 but to keep him in suspension. Learned Government Advocate further submits that the petitioner was never directed by the Headmaster/In-charge Headmaster nor the District Education Officer had directed the petitioner to take examination. 5 was taken into custody being implicated in a criminal case request was made not to terminate the service of the respondent no. 5 but to keep him in suspension. Learned Government Advocate further submits that the petitioner was never directed by the Headmaster/In-charge Headmaster nor the District Education Officer had directed the petitioner to take examination. It has been submitted that the petitioner never submitted his joining before the respondent no. 5 and moreover, the respondent no. 5 was permitted on the post of Headmaster by the Managing Committee of the school which was approved by the board vide memo dated 29.12.1987 but appointment/promotion of the respondent no. 5 as Headmaster was never challenged by the petitioner. 6. Learned Government Advocate has further submitted based on the supplementary affidavit that no charge has been framed against the petitioner. It has therefore, been submitted that the petitioner having failed to make out a case for interference the writ application deserves dismissal. 7. Mr. Manindra Kr. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 5, has submitted on similar lines to the arguments advanced by the Government Advocate. He added that the petitioner is a habitual absconder as in the year 1983 he had absconded and had subsequently joined and in 2001 also the petitioner had absconded but, thereafter, he was allowed to join his duty. It has, therefore, been submitted that the conduct of the petitioner itself shows about his attitude in remaining absent unauthorizedly. 8. From the Supplementary affidavit which has been filed by the State, it appears that for the alleged absence on the part of the petitioner no charge has been framed against him. The dispute, therefore, remains with respect to the joining of the petitioner for which elaborate submission has been advanced by the learned Government Advocate as well as the learned counsel for the respondent no. 5. It is not in dispute that the service of the petitioner was terminated in the year 1984 and subsequently he was given a fresh appointment which was also approved by the competent authority. The petitioner has claimed to have submitted his joining as according to his version he was on examination duty from 28.11.2005 to 05.12.2005. 5. It is not in dispute that the service of the petitioner was terminated in the year 1984 and subsequently he was given a fresh appointment which was also approved by the competent authority. The petitioner has claimed to have submitted his joining as according to his version he was on examination duty from 28.11.2005 to 05.12.2005. This fact however has been disputed by the respondents and nothing has been brought on record to suggest that the purported examination duty as claimed by the petitioner was on the basis of an order of the higher authority. Such circumstance does suggest that the reason for absence as shown by the petitioner is merely a ruse for accepting his joining. The joining report of the petitioner itself being in doubt the question of salary and all other consequential benefits which are dependent on the joining of the petitioner cannot be considered at this stage. Much thrust has been made to the fact that no departmental proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner if at all he was unauthorizedly absent from duty but non-initiation of the departmental proceedings would not solidify the case of the petitioner as the foundational structure which forms the basis of such claim does not appear to be either on sound reasonings or facts. Although this Court is not inclined to interfere with writ application filed on behalf of the petitioner but at this juncture it would be necessary to refer to counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 5 wherein it has been specifically stated that the respondent no. 5 is still ready to accept the joining of the petitioner but he shall not be entitled to any back wages. 9. Considering the averment made in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent no. 5 and although the writ application is devoid of any merit but if any representation is filed before the respondent no 4 by the petitioner with respect to his joining the same shall be considered by the respondent no. 4 in the light of the averment made by the respondent no. 5 and necessary orders shall be passed in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of submission of the representation. 10. 4 in the light of the averment made by the respondent no. 5 and necessary orders shall be passed in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of submission of the representation. 10. It is made clear that the prayer made in the writ application with respect to acceptance of his joining from 06.12.2005 as well as the consequential benefits and seniority of the petitioner for being considered as the Headmaster has been negated by this Court and, therefore, the respondent no. 4 shall restrict himself only with respect to the representation if submitted by the petitioner for his joining as has been indicated above. 11. This writ application is disposed of in terms aforesaid.