JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: - “i. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or a writ of or in the nature of Mandamus directing and commanding upon the concerned respondents to rectify the final gradation list of officers and Assistants of Jharkhand Secretariat Service published vide letter no. 3606 dated 01.07.2011 under the signature of Deputy Secretary of the Government especially in respect of the petitioner and place him in between Serial No. 670 and 671 instead of putting him at the last position at Serial No. 956, for which the petitioner is entitled because at Serial No. 670 an Assistant namely Nand Kishore Mishra has been placed who belongs to petitioner’s batch of 1985 and thereafter from Sl. No. 671 onward upto Sl. No. 949, Assistants of 1993 batch are placed who are 8 years junior batch wise. ii. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or a writ of or in the nature of Mandamus directing and commanding upon the concerned respondents to follow its own Rule namely “SACHIVALAY AUR SANLAGNA KARYALAYON KE SAHAYKON KA SANYUKTA SAMWARG NIYAMAWALI- 1992” (Rule 1992 of Secretariat Assistant Joint Cadre) in which clause 14 provides that inter-se seniority of Assistants is to be determined in accordance with their position in the merit list of successful candidates of the competitive examination for recruitment of Secretariat Assistant which has been violated in respect of the petitioner so far iii. For issuance of any other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions for which the petitioner is found entitled and also for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner.” 3. Learned counsel for the respondents, at the outset, has submitted that the present case is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 244/2014, which has been decided on 16.06.2022. It has also been submitted that so far no appeal has been filed against the aforesaid judgment. Arguments of the petitioner 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present case is distinguishable on facts as compared to the judgment passed in W.P. (S) No. 244/2014. 5. The learned counsel submits that so far as history of appointment of the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner has been appointed as Assistant in the Secretariat against the advertisement vide notice No. 11/1985. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present case is distinguishable on facts as compared to the judgment passed in W.P. (S) No. 244/2014. 5. The learned counsel submits that so far as history of appointment of the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner has been appointed as Assistant in the Secretariat against the advertisement vide notice No. 11/1985. She submits that the Bihar Public Service Commission (herein after referred to as the ‘BPSC’) vide letter dated 13.09.1995 (Annexure-1) submitted a list of 177 persons with recommendation of 170 suitable candidates for their appointment to the Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Bihar, Patna, in which the name of the petitioner figured at serial No. 128, but without assigning any reason, the concerned department returned the said letter of recommendation in respect of the petitioner along with three others even when the vacancies were available. She further submits that the Personnel and Administrative Reform Department, Government of Bihar, Patna resubmitted requisition to BPSC asking for recommendation for appointment of the petitioner along with others vide letter No. 9 dated 07.01.1998 (Annexure-2) and in response to such requisition, the BPSC sent recommendation for appointment of the petitioner along with others to the concerned department vide letter No. 328 dated 26.09.1998 (Annexure-3) and consequently, the petitioner was ultimately appointed vide letter No. 85 dated 10.02.1999. 6. The specific case of the petitioner is that the name of the petitioner was already recommended by the BPSC as back as in the year 1995 and for no fault on the part of the petitioner, the same was returned back and the name was again recommended in the year 1998 and ultimately, the petitioner was appointed in the year 1999. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner should be placed in seniority list by treating the date of appointment of the petitioner at least with respect to the date of initial recommendation i.e., 13.09.1995 and the name of the petitioner should be placed just below the various selected candidates out of the merit list relating to advertisement of the year 1985. 7. During the course of argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has no idea as to why the name of the petitioner was returned, although the name was recommended on 13.09.1995. 7. During the course of argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has no idea as to why the name of the petitioner was returned, although the name was recommended on 13.09.1995. It is further not in dispute that the petitioner had not taken any step pursuant to return of the name. 8. During the course of argument, it also transpired that so far as the recommendation of the name of the petitioner in the year 1995 vide letter dated 13.09.1995 is concerned, the same was the result of various orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5298/1993. It is further not in dispute that as per the letter of appointment issued to the petitioner dated 10.02.1999, there was a specific clause that the appointment will be counted from the date of joining. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of her case, has relied upon the following judgments: - (i) 2015 (1) ALT 680 (Ramalingeswara Rao and Ors. vs. C & M.C. A.P. Transco and Ors.); Para 15 (ii) (2008) 7 SCC 728 (Balwant Singh Narwal & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors.); Para 8 (iii) (2019) 12 SCC 798 (Dinesh Kumar Kashyap & Ors. vs. South East Central Railway & Ors.) Para 7 (iv) (2014) 10 SCC 357 (Asis Kumar Samanta vs. State of West Bengal); Para 4 and 5 (v) L.P.A. No. 588 of 2015 (Smt. Harjeet Kaur vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.) decided on 12th April, 2016 Arguments of the respondents 10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, has given a comparative chart to compare the facts of the case of W.P. (S) No. 244 of 2014 and the present writ petition. He submits that the case of the petitioner of W.P. (S) No. 244 of 2014 was on better footing as compared to the case of the present petitioner, but still the case was dismissed. He submits that the date of appointment of the petitioner of W.P. (S) No. 244 of 2014 was 10.09.1998 and that of the petitioner was 11.02.1999. He submits that the case of the petitioner of W.P. (S) No. 244 of 2014 was on better footing as compared to the case of the present petitioner, but still the case was dismissed. He submits that the date of appointment of the petitioner of W.P. (S) No. 244 of 2014 was 10.09.1998 and that of the petitioner was 11.02.1999. The learned counsel submits that although the reason as to why the name of the petitioner was sent back is not reflecting from the records of this case, but the same is reflecting from the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court reported in (1998) 1 PLJR 905 and he refers to paragraph-5 to 12 of the said judgment. He submits that the name of the petitioner for appointment was recommended pursuant to the various orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the petitioner cannot be given any seniority as compared to those persons who were recruited and joined in service in the intervening period prior to date of joining of the petitioner. 11. The learned counsel has also submitted that this Court in W.P. (S) No. 244/2014 has clearly held that the date of entering into the cadre would be the date giving the seniority position. He has referred to paragraph 36(c) at page 20 of W.P. (S) No. 244 o 2014 to submit that the petitioner was not appointed along with those who were declared successful pursuant to recruitment process initiated in the year 1985, but was appointed pursuant to the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble Patna High Court, though the petitioner’s name reflected in the merit list of the recruitment process of advertisement of the year 1985. The learned counsel has also referred to the judgment passed by this Court reported in 2020 2 JCR 194 (Lalan Prasad lal @ Lalan Pd. Lal vs. The State of Jharkhand) and submits that the judgment passed in L.P.A. No 588/2015 has been considered in the said judgment. Findings of this Court. 12. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that it is not in dispute with regard to the same set of respondents in the present case, similar matter and issue was subject matter of consideration in W.P. (S) No. 244 of 2014 which has been dismissed on 16.06.2022 by this court. 13. Findings of this Court. 12. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that it is not in dispute with regard to the same set of respondents in the present case, similar matter and issue was subject matter of consideration in W.P. (S) No. 244 of 2014 which has been dismissed on 16.06.2022 by this court. 13. The specific case of the respondents is that the present case is squarely covered by the judgment passed in W.P. (S) No. 244 of 2014 and on the other hand, as per the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the present case is distinguishable on facts as compared to the judgment passed in W.P. (S) No. 244 of 2014. 14. The distinguishing facts as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed against the advertisement Notice No. 11/1985 and that BPSC vide letter dated 13.09.1995 submitted a list of 177 persons with recommendation of 170 suitable candidates for their appointment and the name of the petitioner figured at Sl. No. 128 but the concerned department without assigning any reason returned the said recommendation in respect of the petitioner along with three others even when vacancies were available. It has been argued that in view of the aforesaid recommendation letter dated 13.09.1995, the petitioner should be placed just below the various selected candidates out of the merit list relating to advertisement of the year 1985 and the petitioner should not be made to suffer for the fault of the respondents. 15. Upon perusal of the record of this case, when compared to the facts of the writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 244 of 2014, this Court finds that the prayer made in both the writ petitions are the same and the private respondents are also the same. 16. 15. Upon perusal of the record of this case, when compared to the facts of the writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 244 of 2014, this Court finds that the prayer made in both the writ petitions are the same and the private respondents are also the same. 16. This Court further finds that the petitioner of W.P. (S) No. 244 of 2014 had also participated in the selection process issued pursuant to the Advertisement No. 11/1985 and it was the specific case of the petitioner in the said case that since the petitioner was an appointee of the same recruitment process of the year 1985, though appointment was made vide letter dated 08.09.1998 by virtue of order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, he was required to be placed immediately after the candidates recruited by virtue of recruitment process of the year 1985 and was required to be placed as the last candidate amongst them in the seniority list. 17. In the present case also, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is on similar footings with the only distinguishing feature that the name of the present petitioner was included in the letter of recommendation of BPSC dated 13.09.1995 which was of 177 persons with recommendation of 170 suitable candidates and the name of the petitioner was at Sl. No. 128, but the name was returned for the reasons not known to the petitioner and thereafter the Personal & Administrative Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna re-submitted requisition to BPSC vide letter dated 7.01.1998 (Annexure-2) and BPSC again recommended the petitioner along with others vide letter dated 26.09.1998 (Annexure-3) and consequently the petitioner was ultimately appointed vide letter dated 10.02.1999. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that the name of the petitioner was returned without assigning any reason and therefore the petitioner having been recommended as back as in the year 1995 the said recommendation is required to be given due effect. 18. This Court is of the considered view that the aforesaid difference of facts which is sought to be highlighted by the present petitioner has no bearing on the merits of the case in order to distinguish the case of the petitioner from that of W.P.(S) No. 244 of 2014. 18. This Court is of the considered view that the aforesaid difference of facts which is sought to be highlighted by the present petitioner has no bearing on the merits of the case in order to distinguish the case of the petitioner from that of W.P.(S) No. 244 of 2014. This Court is also of the considered view that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment passed in W.P. (S) No. 244 of 2014 for the following reasons. 19. This Court finds that there was another case decided by Hon’ble Patna High Court arising out of the recruitment vide advertisement No.11/85 and referred to by the learned counsel for the Respondents reported in (1998) 1 PLJR 905 (Secretariate Assistants Successful Examinees Union versus State of Bihar) which gives the reason as to why the name of the petitioner was sent back in spite of recommendation of BPSC dated 13.09.1995 and under what circumstances the names were again recommended in the year 1998 pursuant to which the petitioner of W.P.(S) No. 244 of 2014 was appointed in the year 1998 and the present petitioner was appointed in the year 1999. 20. The sequence of events has been mentioned in the judgment passed in W.P. (S) No. 244 of 2014 at para-No. 29 which has been primarily taken from the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 1994 (1) SCC 126 . From perusal of judgment reported in 1994 (1) SCC 126 read with judgment reported (1998) 1 PLJR 905 (Secretariate Assistants Successful Examinees Union versus State of Bihar), it is clear that though the advertisement No. 11/85 stated that vacancies upto the year 1985-86 would be filled up, but it did not disclose the exact number of vacancies available for the appointment. The examination was held in November, 1987 and result of the examination was published in July, 1990. The Board then made recommendations in the light of a communication dated 25.8.1987 received from the Joint Secretary in the department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms which gave the breakup of the vacancies in a tabular form, indicating the total number of vacancies, as then existing to be 357. On the basis of the Board's recommendation 309 candidates were given appointment by the State Government. On the basis of the Board's recommendation 309 candidates were given appointment by the State Government. Candidates in the general category who had secured more than 50% marks in the selection test and whose names were in the select list were empaneled and made to wait in anticipation of release of further vacancies by the State. 21. The aforesaid judgment further reveals that when no further vacancies were released by the State Government, some of those empaneled candidates made a representation before it requesting that all vacancies which had come into existence on the date of publication of the result in July, 1990 should be filled up from the panel prepared on the basis of the selection test held in pursuance of advertisement no.11/85. The State Government turned down the representation by letter dated 08.08.1991 asking the Commission to issue fresh advertisement to hold fresh competitive test for appointment of Secretariat Assistants. At that stage, union of Secretariate Assistants successful examinees filed writ petition being CWJC No. 2912 of 1991 which was allowed vide order dated 11.10.1991 and there was a direction to fill up the vacancies available up to date of publication of the result i.e. July 1990. 22. The said judgment was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. Civil Appeal No. 5298/93 which was disposed of vide judgment dated 08th of October, 1993 reported in 1994(1) SCC 126 . The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the direction given by the High Court to fill up all vacancies coming into existence till the publication of the result in July, 1990 was not proper and could not be sustained and it however affirmed the High Court’s judgment in all other respects that panel would be given effect to for filling up all vacancies which were in existence till December 31, 1988. 23. It has also been recorded in the aforesaid judgments that the Hon’ble Supreme Court while pronouncing the judgment was not apprised of the exact number of vacancies that had come into existence till December 31, 1988. 23. It has also been recorded in the aforesaid judgments that the Hon’ble Supreme Court while pronouncing the judgment was not apprised of the exact number of vacancies that had come into existence till December 31, 1988. After the Appeal was disposed of by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, interlocutory applications were filed making a grievance that the State Government was not complying with the order of the Supreme Court and thereafter a direction was issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to comply with the order and after that the State complied with the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and vide order dated 01.08.1994 interlocutory applications were disposed of. The order dated 01.08.1994 has been quoted in the aforesaid judgment reported in (1998) 1 PLJR 905 (Secretariate Assistants Successful Examinees Union versus State of Bihar). It has further been recorded in the aforesaid judgment that following the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the State Government issued letter dated 10.4.1995 and 21.6.1995 requesting the Commission to recommend names for appointment against 209 vacancies which were in existence till December 31, 1988. Those letters also provided the break-up of the vacancies against different reservation heads as extracted in para 8 of the aforesaid judgment and in response to the government’s request, the commission sent its recommendation vide letters dated 13.09.1995 for 172 posts. The said letter dated 13.09.1995 whose background has been mentioned in the aforesaid judgment passed in (1998) 1 PLJR 905 (supra) is the Annexure 1 to this writ petition. 24. It has further been recorded in paragraph 11 of the judgment reported in (1998) 1 PLJR 905 (supra) that on the basis of the Commission's recommendation 108 candidates were given appointment by the State Government, 43 candidates out of the list of 172 candidates recommended by the Commission failed to turn up for certificate verification despite several reminders sent to them individually and publication of notice in the local leading newspapers and consequently the State Government, by its letter dated 01.07.1996 returned the recommendation of those candidates to the commission with the request to recommend further names. Thus, the background under which some of the names were returned in spite of their recommendation vide letter dated 13.09.1995 (Annexure-1) has been clearly narrated in the aforesaid judgment. Thus, the background under which some of the names were returned in spite of their recommendation vide letter dated 13.09.1995 (Annexure-1) has been clearly narrated in the aforesaid judgment. It is not the case of the petitioner that he appeared for verification of documents pursuant to the recommendation made vide letter dated 13.09.1995 (Annexure-1) and in spite of that his name was returned. 25. It further reveals from the said judgment that the Commission persistently refused to make any further recommendations and maintained that by making recommendation of 172 candidates under letter dated 13.9.1995. It had fully complied with the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and therefore, not obliged to make any further recommendations notwithstanding the repeated requests of the State Government. 26. With the aforesaid background, two issues were framed by the Patna High Court in Judgment reported in (1998) 1 PLJR 905 (supra). Para 16 of the judgment is quoted hereunder: - “16. In view of the stand taken by the Commission, two questions arise for consideration by this court. (i) Whether it is open to the Commission to disregard the requisition and repeated requests made by the State Government to recommend names for appointment? (ii) Whether the Commission can be said to have fully complied with the direction of the Supreme Court in making recommendation of 172 names (against a requisition for 209) by its letter dated 13.9.1995 and therefore it is no longer obliged to make any further recommendation for filling up vacancies which were admittedly in existence on December 31, 1988?” 27. The aforesaid judgment was pronounced on 17th of March, 1998 and the Commission was directed to make recommendation in response to the requisition made by the State Government vide its letter dated 01.07.1996 and consequently recommendation was made vide letter dated 26th September, 1998 (Annexure-3) and ultimately the petitioner was appointed vide letter No. 85 dated 10.02.1999 (Annexure-4). Thus, the reason for not appointing many persons including the petitioner out of the list forwarded vide letter dated 13.09.1995 (Annexure-1) has been clearly mentioned by the Hon’ble Patna High Court in the aforesaid judgment. Thus, the argument of the petitioner that for no reason the name of the petitioner was returned in spite of recommendation vide letter dated 13.09.1995 (Annexure-1) is devoid of any merits, hence rejected. 28. Thus, the argument of the petitioner that for no reason the name of the petitioner was returned in spite of recommendation vide letter dated 13.09.1995 (Annexure-1) is devoid of any merits, hence rejected. 28. Thus, though the petitioner had participated in the selection process of the Advertisement No. 11 of 1985 but was given appointment only by virtue of the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in (1994) 1 SCC 124 i.e. Civil Appeal No. 5298 of 1993 which is also reflecting from the orders annexed with the writ petition including the letter of appointment of the petitioner. Thus, the present petitioner was also given appointment pursuant to the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as was the case of Manoj Kumar Madhukar in W.P. (S) No. 244 of 2014, therefore there is no material distinction between the case of the petitioner and that of Manoj Kumar Madhukar (supra). This Court is of the considered view that the present case is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 244 of 2014 and is accordingly dismissed in terms of judgment dated 16.06.2022 passed in W.P. (S) No. 244 of 2014. 29. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.