JUDGMENT : 1. With the consent of the parties, hearing of the matter has been done through video conferencing and there is no complaint whatsoever regarding audio and visual quality. I.A. No. 464 of 2020 This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 01 day in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Heard parties. 3. Having regard to the averments made in the application and submissions made on behalf of the parties, we are of the view that the appellant was prevented from sufficient cause in filing the appeal within the period of limitation. As such, the delay of 01 day in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned. 4. I.A. No. 464 of 2020 stands allowed. L.P.A. No. 623 of 2019 5. The instant intra-Court appeal , preferred under Clause 10 of Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, is directed against the order/judgment dated 25.07.2019 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.2354 of 2012 whereby and whereunder the decision of the authority as contained in order dated 14.02.2012 has been refused to be interfered with whereby the claim of the writ petitioner for seniority on the post of Assistant Electrical Engineer with effect from 1996 has been rejected. 6. The brief facts of the case which are required to be enumerated herein read as under :- The writ petitioner-appellant, pursuant to advertisement no.2/96 published on 12.02.1996, had applied for consideration of his candidature to be appointed as Assistant Electrical engineer to work on Control Panel in Tenughat Thermal Power Station, in short TTPS, in which he was selected and was placed at serial no. 16 of the merit list under the category of backward caste candidates. Subsequently Tenughat Vidyut Nigam Limited, in short TVNL, issued notification for first appointment on 09.07.1996. According to writ petitioner, even though there was vacancy under the backward class category but the TVNL did not take any steps to fill up the said vacancy by offering appointment to the candidates whose names find place in the said merit list and without filling up vacancy of backward class quota, the respondents had issued another advertisement for filling up vacancies. Aggrieved with this action, the writ petitioner had approached to Patna High Court by filing writ petition seeking direction upon the respondents to fill up vacancies of backward category existing prior to month of November, 1998. The Patna High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondents to fill up the existing vacancies under the backward category quota prior to December, 1998 by first offering the post to the candidate at serial no. 15 of the panel and if he does not accept the same, the same be offered to the writ petitioner. The respondents challenged the aforesaid order of the Patna High Court under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent jurisdiction wherein the order passed by the learned Single Judge was affirmed against which Special Leave Petition was filed before Hon'ble Apex Court which was dismissed. The writ petitioner had filed contempt petition in view of the fact that the order passed by the learned Single Judge was not being complied with but during pendency of the contempt petition, the writ petitioner was allowed to join TVNL on 13.05.2003. The writ petitioner, after joining the said post, had again approached this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 4375 of 2005 seeking a direction to reckon his seniority from the date of appointment of the other persons whose names find mentioned in the merit list. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 21.12.2011 with a direction to the Respondent No.2 to dispose of the representation of the writ petition by passing a speaking order within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of the order. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the respondent authorities passed an order on 14.02.2012 whereby the representation of the writ petition was disposed of by rejecting his claim of reckoning seniority with effect from 1996 on the ground that the writ petitioner had submitted unconditional joining in pursuance of offer of appointment dated 09.06.2003 stating therein that he shall remain in probation for a period of three years from the date of his joining. His probationary period expired on completion of three years period and only thereafter his services were confirmed and in that view of the matter, it has been decided that the claim of the writ petitioner to treat him at par with other Assistant Electrical Engineers of 1996 batch is not tenable. The second ground taken in the impugned order is that he was already in Government employment prior to joining TVNL, i.e., under Rajya Saikshik Prodyogiki Sansthan as such, that period cannot be taken into account as seniority. Argument has been advanced on behalf of the writ petitioner that when the order of the Patna High Court was affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, there is no reason for denying the seniority from the year 1996, in support of his contention, reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered in the case of Sanjay Dhar v. J and K Public Service Commission and another reported in (2008) 8 SCC 182. The respondents appeared before the writ court and objected the claim of the writ petitioner inter alia taking the stand that since the writ petitioner had joined service on 07.06.2003 in TVNL after he was released from his erstwhile employer i.e, Rajya Saikshik Prodyogiki Sansthan and as such the writ petitioner, since had accepted the joining letter dated 09.06.2003 unconditionally and pursuant thereto he accepted all the benefits with effect from 09.06.2003, he cannot now claim notional promotion from the year 1996. The learned Single Judge, on deliberating upon the issues and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, has declined to interfere with the impugned order dated 14.02.2012 which is the subject matter of the instant intra-court appeal. 7. Mr. Abhay Prakash, learned counsel representing the appellant/writ petitioner, has submitted that no fault lies on the part of the appellant and if the appointment of the appellant would have been made in the year 1996 along with other successful candidates whose names were appearing in the merit list prepared in the year 1996, the appellant would have got the seniority from the year 1996 and as such, even though the appellant has been appointed in the year 2003 he is entitled for reckoning of the seniority from the year 1996. He submits that the authority, without considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, has rejected the claim and when the same has been assailed before the writ court, even the writ court has not appreciated the aforesaid aspect of the matter and hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from infirmity as such, not sustainable. 8. This Court has heard the learned counsel representing the appellant/writ petitioner and after taking into consideration the materials available on record as also the finding recorded in the impugned order, deems it fit and proper to refer certain admitted facts which read as under :- The appellant/writ petitioner had submitted application for consideration of his candidature in pursuance of Advertisement No.2/96 dated 12.02.1996 whereby and whereunder applications were invited to fill up 15 posts of Assistant Electrical Engineers to work on Control Panel in TTPS. The appellant/writ petitioner along with others had participated in the process of selection in which after assessing the performance of one or the other candidates, merit list was prepared in which name of appellant/writ petitioner appears at Sl. No.16. The respondent authorities had issued first notification for appointment on 09.07.1996 but the offer of appointment was not issued in favour of the appellant/writ petitioner. In consequence thereof, a writ petition was filed by the writ petitioner before the Patna high Court seeking a direction for issuance of appointment letter in his favour. The Patna High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondent TTPS to first offer the appointment to the candidate whose name was appearing at Sl. No.15 and if he does not accept the same, then the post be filled up by issuing appointment letter in favour of the writ petitioner since the writ petitioner was at Sl. No.16 of the merit list prepared in the year 1996. The aforesaid order of the Patna High Court was challenged before the Division Bench as also by filing Special Leave Petition before Hon'ble Apex Court but the order passed by the learned Single Judge was declined to be interfered with and therefore, attained finality. The writ petitioner then filed contempt case in consequence of non-compliance of the order passed by the Patna High Court and during pendency of the contempt petition offer of appointment was issued to the writ petitioner and accordingly he was allowed to join TVNL on 13.05.2003. The writ petitioner then filed contempt case in consequence of non-compliance of the order passed by the Patna High Court and during pendency of the contempt petition offer of appointment was issued to the writ petitioner and accordingly he was allowed to join TVNL on 13.05.2003. The writ petitioner, after joining the said post, has agitated the grievance about reckoning his seniority from the year 1996 and when his grievance was not redressed, he approached this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No.4375 of 2005 which was disposed of on 21.12.2011 with a direction to Respondent No.2 to take a decision by disposing of the representation. The representation filed by the writ petitioner was rejected vide order dated 14.02.2012 denying the claim of counting his seniority from 1996. The writ petitioner, being aggrieved with the aforesaid order dated 14.02.2012, preferred a writ petition being W.P.(S) No.2354 of 2012 but the writ court has declined to interfere with the aforesaid decision which is the subject matter of the present intra-court appeal. 9. From the admitted facts as elaborated hereinabove, it transpires that the joining letter dated 09.06.2003 was issued to the writ petitioner and in pursuance thereof he has joined the post on 13.05.2003. We have gone across the Advertisement No.2/96 wherefrom we have found that the applications were invited from graduate engineers securing First Class in Electrical/Mechanical/Electronics Branch for the post of Assistant Electrical Engineer in TVNL in the pay scale of Rs.2450-75-2750-100-4250/-. It further appears that candidates with engineering degree in Electrical/Mechanical/Electronics Branch and having at least five years’ experience in operation of Thermal Power Station having generating capacity of at least 110 MW may also apply. It is, thus, evident that the advertisement reflects about the fresh appointment to the aforesaid post. This Court has further examined the order passed by the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 11907 of 1999, disposed of on 25.04.2001 wherefrom it is evident that Patna High Court has disposed of the writ petition taking into consideration the non-fulfillment of the post from among the backward caste category even though the vacancies already advertised and available. This Court has further examined the order passed by the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 11907 of 1999, disposed of on 25.04.2001 wherefrom it is evident that Patna High Court has disposed of the writ petition taking into consideration the non-fulfillment of the post from among the backward caste category even though the vacancies already advertised and available. The Patna High Court has observed in the said order which reads as under :- “… … No doubt there is backward category candidate available above the petitioner at serial 15 and petitioner is at serial 16 but petitioner is entitled to raise a grievance that the authorities acted unfairly in not filling up the backward category vacancy although there was sufficient time for the same and they knew about the existing vacancy. Since no good reasons have been furnished for the decision of the Board of Directors, hence, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner has to be accepted. In such circumstances, the respondents are directed to fill up the vacancy of backward category existing prior to December, 1998 by first offering that post to the person at serial 15 of the panel and if he does not accept the same then the same should be offered to the petitioner.” Thus, it is clear that the Patna High Court has not made any observation for counting the seniority from the year 1996 even though the writ petition was filed in the year 1999 and was disposed of in the month of April, 2001. We have considered the appointment letter issued in favour of the writ petitioner which contains certain conditions i.e., a surety bond in non-judicial stamp paper was to be submitted, the writ petitioner remained in probation for a period of three years from the date of his joining, his probationary period expired on completion of three years and only thereafter his services were confirmed. Further, the writ petitioner was in the service of State Education Technical Institute, Bihar (Rajya Saikshik Prodyogiki Sansthan) which is an institution under the undivided State of Bihar and when the writ petitioner was decided to be appointed in the TVNL, he made an application for relinquishment of his service which was positively responded by taking a decision by Director of the institution dated 07.06.2003 as appended as Annexure-13 to the memo of appeal whereby and whereunder the writ petitioner has been relieved from Rajya Saikshik Prodyogiki Sansthan with effect from 07.06.2003 in order to give his joining as Assistant Electrical Engineer in TTPS, Lalpania. In view of the aforesaid facts, it is evident that the writ petitioner, at the time of consideration of his candidature for being appointed in pursuance of the Advertisement No. 2/96, was already in service of a Government institution. It is further evident that in the advertisement there is no condition to give any pay protection or reckoning the seniority if a candidate is working in any other establishment of the State Government. The writ petitioner, knowing all these facts, had made application for consideration of his candidature for being selected as Assistant Electrical Engineer and though his name had come in the merit list under the backward community category but he was not finally selected. Admitted facts herein is that in the merit list, above the writ petitioner, another candidate belonging to backward community was there at Sl. No. 15 while the petitioner was at Sl. No.16 and due to that reason Patna High Court had directed to first issue offer of appointment in favour of the candidate who name was appearing at Sl. No.15 and only in case of his refusal, the appointment letter would be issued in favour of the writ petitioner. The authorities, in compliance of the order passed by the Patna High Court, had first offered joining to the candidate whose name was appearing at Sl. No.15 and only in case of his refusal, the appointment letter would be issued in favour of the writ petitioner. The authorities, in compliance of the order passed by the Patna High Court, had first offered joining to the candidate whose name was appearing at Sl. No.15 to fill up the vacancy under the category of backward community but since he had refused to accept the joining, therefore, appointment letter was issued in favour of the writ petitioner on 09.06.2003 with the conditions that the period of three years will be probation and only after completion of three years’ period, the services would be confirmed, meaning thereby, the writ petitioner has accepted the offer of appointment and has unconditionally given joining to discharge duty as Assistant Electrical Engineer, TVNL. The writ petitioner, after acceptance of the aforesaid conditions, has agitated the grievance about reckoning his seniority from the year 1996 but has been rejected by the authority which has been declined to be interfered with by the learned Single Judge which according to our considered view, has rightly been rejected for the reason that the writ petitioner admittedly was working under the Government establishment and on relinquishment of his charge and on being relieved, he has joined as Assistant Electrical Engineer, TVNL, if the writ petitioner would be given the benefit of reckoning the seniority, the same would amount to recfkoning his service from the year 1996 but there is no concept of granting notional seniority and once the seniority would be granted from the year 1996, it would lead to treating the writ petitioner appointee of 1996 which, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, is not permissible. Further, the appellant/writ petitioner admittedly was working under the institution i.e., Rajya Saikshik Prodyogiki Sansthan and while he was working in a Government institution, his services cannot be treated to be in a different establishment on the date he was already in service of other Government institution. The appellant/writ petitioner did not agitate the aforesaid ground before the Patna High Court since there is no direction to that effect to reckon his seniority from the year 1996 and, therefore, any direction, if passed in that regard, it would amount to reviewing the order passed by the Patna High Court which has already been affirmed even by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In view thereof, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 14.02.2012. 10. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed.