JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Rajendra Narayan, learned senior counsel, along with Mr. Vikas Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.C. to G.A. 5 for the State and Mr. Banwari Sharma, along with Mr. Sahjanand Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5. 2. The challenge in the writ petition is to the order contained in Memo No. 758 dated 17.06.2016, by which the respondent no. 5 had been made the In-charge Principal of the Government Women’s College, Gardanibagh, Patna. The petitioner and respondent no. 5 are lecturers in the said college and on superannuation of the erstwhile In-charge Principal of the college on 13th April, 2016, initially, by order contained in Memo No. 592 dated 03.05.2016, the petitioner was made the In-charge Principal and she took charge of the post on 04.05.2016. Thereafter, it appears that the authorities, upon the representation filed by the respondent no. 5, issued the impugned order making her the In-charge Principal of the college. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that she was appointed in the year 1986 and when the question of regularization came up, she had to move before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3902 of 1991 and a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, by judgment dated 04.12.1995, had directed for her regularization in terms of the law propounded in the order. In challenge to the same in L.P.A. No. 107 of 1996, which was disposed of by judgment dated 08.03.1997, the Division Bench did not interfere substantially in the order of the learned Single Judge but modified the same slightly. Pursuant to the same, the service of the petitioner was initially regularized under Memo No. 252 dated 14.02.1998 in the pay scale of Rs. 2200-75-2300-100-4000/-. The said order was later on modified under Memo No. 1119 dated 08.08.2006 by which such regularization was made effective from 08.04.1986 which date, later on was again modified under Memo No. 1478 dated 06.11.2006 to 09.04.1986. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent no. 5 admittedly came into service on 23.05.1987 and once the State itself has accepted and rather ordered for regularization of her services with effect from 09.04.1986, she has to be given the benefit of such date of regularization for all purposes, including the issue of being made In-charge Principal on the basis of seniority. 4. 5 admittedly came into service on 23.05.1987 and once the State itself has accepted and rather ordered for regularization of her services with effect from 09.04.1986, she has to be given the benefit of such date of regularization for all purposes, including the issue of being made In-charge Principal on the basis of seniority. 4. Learned counsel for the State submitted that though in terms of the affidavits filed in the present case, initially the stand was that there may be some scope for not accepting the petitioner as the senior-most lecturer in the college, but the government, upon reconsideration, has come to the conclusion that till the time there is no modification in the order contained in Memo No. 1478 dated 06.11.2006, the services of the petitioner is deemed to be regularized with effect from 09.04.1986 and in such view of the matter, the fact that admittedly the date of appointment of respondent no. 5 is 23.05.1987, appropriate order would be passed by the Competent Authority. Learned counsel has clarified before the Court during the course of arguments that he was making such submissions on the basis of telephonic instructions received from the Deputy Direction, Higher Education, Government of Bihar, Patna by learned G.A. 5. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 submitted that the petitioner is a back door entrant and holding the post of lecturer by first being appointed on Daily Wages and later on getting her services confirmed. He submitted that even if it is taken that she may now be a regular government servant, her service cannot be treated at par with the service of the respondent no. 5, as she was a direct entrant, after having been recommended by the Bihar Public Service Commission. It was submitted that even the order of the petitioner being regularized in a pay scale, which was in terms of the order of the Court in L.P.A. No. 107 of 1996, the same was only limited to her being regularized in a particular scale and had nothing to do with seniority. He further submitted that this would also be clear from the fact that the circular of the State Government contained in Memo No. 3/R.1-105/71/712106 dated 13.07.1971. It was submitted that based on such circular the objection of the respondent no. 5 was upheld and, thus, the impugned order was passed making the respondent no. He further submitted that this would also be clear from the fact that the circular of the State Government contained in Memo No. 3/R.1-105/71/712106 dated 13.07.1971. It was submitted that based on such circular the objection of the respondent no. 5 was upheld and, thus, the impugned order was passed making the respondent no. 5 the Incharge Principal of the college. Further, he also relied upon the circular of the State Government contained in Memo No. 3/R.1-105/71/72/86 dated 15.07.1981 and both clearly stipulate that for the purposes of inter se seniority, the period of ad hoc/temporary appointment was also being taken into consideration which was incorrect. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, by way of reply, submitted that while the matter was being considered at the time when the erstwhile incumbent was about to superannuate, there was a clear cut finding in the noting of the relevant file that the petitioner was the next senior most person, both in terms of her date of joining as well as confirmation of her service. 7. Learned counsel for the State submitted that in the order impugned, there is no reference of either the circular of the year 1971 or the year 1981 and, thus, it cannot be said that the order has been passed taking into note such circulars. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 drew the attention of the Court to the noting made by the then Hon’ble Minister, Education Department in which there is reference of the letter dated 13.07.1971. 9. Having considered the matter, in the opinion of the Court, the order impugned cannot be sustained. For the purposes of making a working arrangement of appointing an In-charge Principal, it has to be simply on the basis of the seniority of the teachers available, subject to there being no other disqualification. In the present case, initially it appears that the Department was on track while having treated the petitioner as senior to the respondent no. 5 and, thus, she was also made the In-charge Principal but later on, from the consideration made at the level of the Hon’ble Minister, it appears that the policy of the State Government with regard to fixing inter se seniority based on ad hoc appointment has been taken note of. 5 and, thus, she was also made the In-charge Principal but later on, from the consideration made at the level of the Hon’ble Minister, it appears that the policy of the State Government with regard to fixing inter se seniority based on ad hoc appointment has been taken note of. The very reading of the both the circulars of the year 1971 and 1981 indicate that though the bar to take note of or consider the ad hoc period is sound, but that is not the issue involved in the present case at all. In the present case, from 09.04.1986, the service of the petitioner is no more ad hoc. Once the Government, by a formal order, has regularized the service of the petitioner with effect from 09.04.1986, it is deemed, in law, that from 09.04.1986, the service is regular and not ad hoc or temporary. Thus, the above two circulars deal with a situation where after a certain period of service of ad hoc/temporary service, when the service of a person may be regularized or he may come in the regular establishment, at the time of determining inter se seniority, such period which he/she may have spent in that ad hoc/temporary capacity, will not be added or taken into consideration for such determination. Here, such is not the situation, as from 09.04.1986, the petitioner is deemed to be in regular service and thus for all purposes, her consideration of service has to be taken considering the cut off date 09.04.1986. Thus, the respondent no. 5 also admittedly having come to hold the post on 23.05.1986 is, but naturally, much junior to the petitioner. In view thereof, the Court holds that, as of now, when the order of regularization of service of the petitioner has been accepted by the Government with effect from 09.04.1986, compared to that of the respondent no. 5, where she is in regular service with effect from 23.05.1986, the basis of making arrangement of appointing as In-charge Principal, being that of only seniority, the petitioner has first claim on such post. 10. Accordingly, the order impugned stands set aside. 11. 5, where she is in regular service with effect from 23.05.1986, the basis of making arrangement of appointing as In-charge Principal, being that of only seniority, the petitioner has first claim on such post. 10. Accordingly, the order impugned stands set aside. 11. It goes without saying that consequent upon quashing of the order impugned, the order dated 23.05.1986 made in favour of the petitioner, appointing her as In-charge Principal stands revived, which would be subject to any further order passed by the State Government, in future, in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned. 12. However, the respondent no. 5 shall not be precluded to agitate the matter with regard to her claim, both of seniority and initial appointment, before the appropriate forum, in accordance with law. 13. The writ petition stands allowed in the aforementioned terms.