JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Lal Gyan Ranjan Nath Shahdeo, learned A.C. to G.P. II. for the State of Jharkhand, Mr. Shivam Sahay, learned counsel for the B.P.S.C. and Mr. Soumitra Baroi, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent nos. 6 to 24. 2. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition for direction upon the respondents to grant seniority to the petitioners from the date of which the other similarly situated candidates have been appointed in service by the Bihar Public Service Commission with all consequential benefits. The further prayer is made to fix the pay scale of the petitioners in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 on the ground that petitioners have been recommended along with the employees who have been recommended and appointed along with the same recommendation order. 3. Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that pursuant to an advertisement by the B.P.S.C., the petitioners had applied for appointment on the post of priority wise i.e. Assistant/Clerk, Accounts Clerk (Senior) and Revenue Karmachari. He submits that the result of the said examination was published on 25.07.2002 Annexure-3 to the writ petition by the B.P.S.C. in which the petitioners have been declared successful. The penal of seniority of the successful candidate was also prepared by the BPSC where the name of the petitioners find place at serial nos. 4, 8, 10, 20, 22 and 23. The said merit list is annexed at Annexure-4 to the writ petition of a letter dated 31.03.2003 of the candidates whose names are appearing in the said merit list, have been appointed except the 23 successful candidates including these petitioners who have been left out and as such the other successful candidates have been appointed on 28.01.2004. However, subsequently, BPSC by way of a communication dated 15.07.2004 letter communicated to the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro to take necessary action for appointment of the 12 recommended candidates who have been recommended vide letter no. 426 dated 15.07.2004 and pursuant to communication dated 20.02.2008, the petitioners have been appointed in the month of April, 2008 on different dates to the posts of Lower Division Clerk, with respect to petitioner nos. 1, 3 and 4 and Junior Accounts Clerk with respect to petitioner nos. 2, 5 and 6 in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590/-. 426 dated 15.07.2004 and pursuant to communication dated 20.02.2008, the petitioners have been appointed in the month of April, 2008 on different dates to the posts of Lower Division Clerk, with respect to petitioner nos. 1, 3 and 4 and Junior Accounts Clerk with respect to petitioner nos. 2, 5 and 6 in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590/-. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that the petitioners have been appointed pursuant to the same advertisement and issuance of the appointment letter later on cannot be said that they have been appointed later on. 4. Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners have been declared successful along with the private respondents of the writ petition. There are no latches on the part of the petitioners and such they cannot be discriminated. He further submits that it is apparent from the communication dated 15.07.2004, they have again been recommended for their appointments, but, in spite of specific recommendation on 15.07.2004, the Government of Jharkhand has taken a decision after lapse of almost four years i.e. on 20.02.2008 and thereafter they have been appointed in the month of April, 2008 that too on the posts to which they have not made their application. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners fairly submits that they are not seeking any financial gain but they are entitled for promotion at least notional or at least from the date of filing of this writ petition. To substantiate his argument learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of Dr. Madhu Mishra vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. in W.P.(S) No. 2371 of 2017 which was disposed of vide order dated 17.11.2017. He further relied in the case of D.Ganesh Rao Patnaik and Others Versus the State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in (2005) 8 SCC 454 particularly on paragraph no. 17 which reads as follows: “17. As mentioned earlier no appointments by direct recruitment to the Bihar Superior Judicial Service were made after 1979. Even though the advertisement was issued in 1985, but no follow-up action was taken. It was under these circumstances that K.P. Verma filed a writ petition, which was heard and decided by a Full Bench of three learned Judges of the Patna High Court, who wrote separate but concurring opinions and the judgment is reported in K.P. Verma V. State of Bihar. It was under these circumstances that K.P. Verma filed a writ petition, which was heard and decided by a Full Bench of three learned Judges of the Patna High Court, who wrote separate but concurring opinions and the judgment is reported in K.P. Verma V. State of Bihar. Shamsul Hasan, J., who authored the main judgment while disposing of the writ petition, issued several directions and direction (i) which is of vital significance is being reproduced below (AIR p. 287 para18) “18(i) the 30 vacancies that are now being filled up were available earlier and they would ordinarily have been treated to be the vacancy of the year 1985. This cannot be done now but it is now to be ensured that the vacancies meant for direct recruits are filled up in due time. Through, those who are appointed directly will rank junior to those who are promoted in the vacancy of the same year but the direct appointees will rank senior to those who are promoted after the appointment of direct recruits i.e. after the direct appointees of the earlier year though the direct recruits might have been actually appointed later due to official delay. The candidates appointed against the vacancy of a particular year. Further, the vacancies meant for even on the ground that the posts are lying vacant due to the delay caused by the appointment procedure. If any post out of the 30 lying vacant from the quota of direct recruits has been filled up or is filled up by promotion, such promote will revert immediately to his original position in the service from which he has been promoted and on being promoted in the future will rank below those who fill up the 30 vacancies by direct recruitment.” and submits that in view of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court the candidates appointed against the vacancy of the posts are covered by the above judgment and as such the petitioners are entitled for seniority at least from the date, the private respondents are appointed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent State of Jharkhand, submits that in view of the letter dated 15.07.2004, the posts of Clerk whose pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- demerged with lower Division Clerk and Upper Division Clerk i.e. 3050-4500/- and Rs. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent State of Jharkhand, submits that in view of the letter dated 15.07.2004, the posts of Clerk whose pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- demerged with lower Division Clerk and Upper Division Clerk i.e. 3050-4500/- and Rs. 4000-6000 respectively and any new appointment in the post of Lower Division Clerk are to be in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4500/-. He argues that the petitioners rightly have been provided Rs. 3050-4500 in the post of Lower Division Clerk. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents submits that they have already worked for the substantial period of time and there is no fault on their part as such they should not be disturbed. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the selection list of this petitioners and the private respondents have been published simultaneously rather by way of letter, the selection list was pursuant to one advertisement. The private respondents were appointed on 28.01.2004 but for no fault, on behalf of the petitioners, their case have been left out and finally the BPSC by letter dated 15.07.2004 communicated to the appointing authority that they appointed 12 petitioners from the candidates who were selected along with the private respondents of this writ petition. Thereafter, the petitioners have been appointed w.e.f. April, 2008 when the selection process had begun from the issue of advertisement, the selection process was delayed, so far as the petitioners are concerned, unnecessarily which was beyond the control of the petitioners and they have been asked to suffer only on the account of delay on the part of the appointing authority or the commission for which the petitioners cannot be held responsible. Moreover, the petitioners are not seeking any financial gain and petitioners are praying only for notional promotion at least w.e.f. the date of filing of this writ petition or notional benefits to the petitioner at least w.e.f. the date of appointment of private respondents. 8. Accordingly, the petitioners are entitled for notional promotion w.e.f. the date the private respondents have been appointed. The respondents shall do so within 8 weeks form the date of receipt of a copy of this order so far as the notional seniority of the petitioners are concerned. 8. Accordingly, the petitioners are entitled for notional promotion w.e.f. the date the private respondents have been appointed. The respondents shall do so within 8 weeks form the date of receipt of a copy of this order so far as the notional seniority of the petitioners are concerned. The appointment letter dated 29.04.2008 is modified to the extent that the petitioner will be provided notional seniority with effect from 28.01.2004. The petitioner will not be entitled for financial gain. 9. In view of the observations and directions made herein above, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.