JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner has approached this Hon'ble Court with a prayer for direction to the respondents to treat the appointment of the petitioners from the date the similarly situated persons have been appointed i.e. from 07.11.1994. Further prayer has been made for correction in the gradation list of the District-Bokaro after shifting the date of appointment of the petitioner notionally as 7.11.1994 instead of 28.04.1995. Factual Matrix 2. The petitioners were Graduate and also having qualification of the B.Ed on or before 1994. They are in search of suitable job and they came across an advertisement with regard to appointment of Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools, published by B.P.S.C. 3. Pursuant to the said advertisement the petitioners applied and appeared in the examination conducted by the B.P.S.C. and after going through the entire process of selection for the same the petitioners have been duly selected and accordingly the merit list was prepared for the district of Dhanbad in which the petitioner No.1 and 2 stood at Sl.No.92 & 176 respectively. 4. After publication of the said merit list the district of Dhanbad was bifurcated and new district of Bokaro has been carved out from the old district of Dhanbad and it has been decided by the competent authority that the persons selected for the earlier district of Dhanbad i.e. 535, out of which the names 261 teachers has been recommended to be appointed in district Bokaro and accordingly the names of these petitioners are being transferred to the district of Bokaro for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher. 5. The District Establishment Committee on 7th November, 1994 had issued Appointment Letter to other similarly situated persons, who had been selected along with present petitioners. However, without assigning any reason the appointment letters to the present petitioners were not issued. 6. As the case of the petitioner was not considered by the respondents though several representations were preferred, the petitioners were compelled to knock the door of this Hon'ble Court. 7. Mr. Amit Kumar Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that illegally and arbitrarily the case of the petitioner has not been considered for giving notional appointment from 7.11.1994 though juniors to the petitioners in gradation list have been given appointment from 7.11.1994 and the petitioner has been considered from 28.04.1995. 8. 7. Mr. Amit Kumar Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that illegally and arbitrarily the case of the petitioner has not been considered for giving notional appointment from 7.11.1994 though juniors to the petitioners in gradation list have been given appointment from 7.11.1994 and the petitioner has been considered from 28.04.1995. 8. Learned Counsel submits that petitioners are having more qualification than the persons who have been considered for appointment from the earlier date i.e. 7.11.1994. The petitioners are having the qualification of B.Sc., B.Ed. and are also trained teachers. They have been appointed through the same channel facing the Commission and in view of which the junior persons were appointed. 9. Learned Counsel submits that petitioners are not claiming any salary of the period rather they are only claiming to be appointed from the said date by shifting their date of appointment and considering them for notional appointment from 7.11.1994. 10. Learned Counsel submits that earlier also in several cases this Court has considered for granting notional appointment from the date the other persons from the same selection process has been appointed. 11. Learned Counsel further argued that for the fault on behalf of the State-respondents, the petitioners cannot be allowed to suffer as the petitioners are not claiming salary, they should be considered for notional appointment so that they may get their respective seniority. 12. Per contra counter-affidavit has been filed. 13. Mr. Deepak Kumar Dubey, J.C. to Sr. S.C.I. Vehemently opposes the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and argues that in no way the notional appointment of the petitioners can be considered and justified the order of appointment of the petitioners. 14. Learned Counsel submits that no illegality has been committed by the Department for consideration of their case for appointment from 28.04.1995. They cannot be considered for shifting the date of notional appointment from 28.04.1995 to 07.11.1994. 15. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioners needs consideration. The petitioners are having higher qualification than the persons who have been appointed from the earlier date i.e. 07.11.1994 whereas the petitioners were appointed on 28.04.1995. The petitioners are trained teachers having the qualification of B.Sc, B.Ed. The petitioners are having higher qualification than the persons who have been appointed from the earlier date i.e. 07.11.1994 whereas the petitioners were appointed on 28.04.1995. The petitioners are trained teachers having the qualification of B.Sc, B.Ed. whereas the persons who have been appointed from the earlier date are not trained teachers and are having lesser qualification compared to that of the petitioners. The petitioners have been made to suffer at the hands of the respondents themselves. Earlier a notification was in vogue that persons having B.Ed. and M.Ed qualification are not to be appointed on the post of Assistant Teachers rather subsequent notification was issued by the Commission that they are competent persons to be appointed on the post of Assistant Teachers this shows the mala fide intention of the commission as the petitioners are not claiming any salary of the period they are only claiming their seniority by shifting the date of appointment. This Court is convinced by the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 16. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules, guidelines, observations and the judicial pronouncements as it is settled law that seniority has to be considered from the date of initial appointment. If the cases of the petitioners are not considered and they are deprived of the notional appointment from 07.11.1994 they will lose their seniority and they will be treated as juniors to the persons who were junior to these petitioners in the gradation list earlier. I therefore, direct respondent No.6-Deputy Superintendent of Education to consider their case for granting them notional appointment from the date i.e. 07.11.1994 instead of 28.04.1995. The entire exercise be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if required the matter be placed before the Establishment Committee and the Establishment Committee by a reasoned order may shift the date of appointment of the petitioners from 28.04.1995 to 07.11.1994 after consideration of their case. 17. Needless to say that after consideration of their case for shifting of the date and granting them notional appointment, the respondents will also consider for correction in the gradation list. 18. The writ petition stands allowed.