JUDGMENT Murahari Sri Raman, J. - The challenge: Challenge has been laid to Judgment dated 09.08.2023 rendered by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.29187 of 2019 and W.P.(C) No.18128 of 2009 in the matters of applications under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner therein, being aggrieved, preferred the intra-Court appeals beseeching to invoke provisions of Article 4 of the Orissa High Court Order, 1948 read with Clause 10 of the Letters Patent constituting the High Court of Judicature at Patna and Rule 6 of Chapter-III and Rule 2 of Chapter-VIII of the Rules of the High Court of Orissa, 1948. 2. This matter was on Board on 02.05.2024 under the heading 'Fresh Admission'. Learned Additional Government Advocate has raised objection against entertainment of single writ appeal against common judgment dated 09.08.2023 passed in two writ petitions and submitted that there is little scope for interference with the decision of the learned Single Judge in the writ appeal filed by the appellant-writ petitioner. 3. The facts culled out from the pleadings reveal that in pursuance of Resolution dated 10.01.2001 of the Managing Committee of Nanda Kishore High School, Tilada, Sarugaon in the district of Balasore, the appellant joined on 18.01.2001 against the second post of peon in the said School, which got approved by the Inspector of Schools, Balasore vide Office Order No.2376, dated 28.03.2009 with effect from 01.04.2008. 3.1. However, pursuant to the Orissa Education (Payment of Grant-in-Aid to High Schools, Upper Primary Schools, etc.) Amendment Order, 2008 (for brevity, 'Amendment Order, 2008') vide Order No.23611-IX-SME (Sch)-35/2008-SME, dated 08.12.2008 and with reference to Letter No.63144, dated 18.12.2008 of the Director, Secondary Education, Odisha, the Inspector of Schools by way of Order No.9008, dated 13.10.2009 modified the approval. Consequent thereof, the position of Gayadhar Nayak-respondent No.6 was approved as Science Attendant and the post of appellant-Purusottam Swain, was approved as Night Watchman-cum-Sweeper with effect from 01.04.2008. 3.2. The appellant assailed such modified Order of approval before this Court by way of a writ application, which was registered as W.P.(C) No.18128 of 2009, which came to be dismissed for non-prosecution on 11.07.2017, and subsequently, stood restored vide Order dated 10.01.2019 passed in CMAPL No.344 of 2018. 3.3. 3.2. The appellant assailed such modified Order of approval before this Court by way of a writ application, which was registered as W.P.(C) No.18128 of 2009, which came to be dismissed for non-prosecution on 11.07.2017, and subsequently, stood restored vide Order dated 10.01.2019 passed in CMAPL No.344 of 2018. 3.3. As it revealed from the record, an FIR was lodged against the appellant by the Headmaster of the School on 26.09.2018 and on 28.09.2018, a show-cause notice was issued to furnish reply as to why action would not be taken against him for disobedience of the direction to work as Night Watchman-cum-Sweeper in the School. Consequently, Resolution has been passed by the Managing Committee on 10.10.2018 to suspend the appellant, which was placed before the District Education Officer, Balasore for approval. 3.4. It is stated by the appellant that on the last date fixed for filing said show cause reply, he was arrested on 05.10.2018 and got released on bail on 18.10.2018. Thereafter, he could submit his reply on 20.10.2018. Nonetheless, the District Education Officer, Balasore approved the Order of suspension on 28.11.2018. 3.5. Challenging the Order of suspension, the appellant approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.122 of 2019, which was disposed of by an Order dated 07.03.2019 with a direction to consider the representation. The District Education Officer having considered such representation, rejected it by Order dated 20.09.2019. 3.6. The District Education Officer taking note of modified approval Order held in the said Office Order dated 20.09.2019 that: 'Perused the application of the petitioner under Annexure-II, documents/ records available in the files in Resolutions submitted by the Managing Committee of N.K. High School, Tilada. Sri Purusottam Swain was approved as Peon of the N.K. High School, Tilada, vide Inspectorate Order No.2376, dated 28.03.2009 and subsequently it was modified and approved as Night Watchman-cum-Sweeper with effect from 01.04.2008 vide this Office Order No.9008, dated 13.10.2019. On perusal of records/documents available in file and reports of the Headmaster-cum-Secretary of Nanda Kishore High School, Tilada, it is revealed that Sri Swain is the junior most of the peons considering the date of joining and approval of Sri Swain as 3rd peon (Night Watchman-cum-Sweeper) is justified and genuine. The claim of the petitioner to act as Peon-II (Science Attendant) is devoid of merit and liable to be rejected. ***' 3.7. The claim of the petitioner to act as Peon-II (Science Attendant) is devoid of merit and liable to be rejected. ***' 3.7. After recording such fact emanating from record/documents, the Inspector of Schools in the aforesaid Order directed for reinstatement of the appellant in service in the said School with immediate effect by vacating order of suspension. Thereupon, the Headmaster of the School on 01.11.2019 issued a Letter addressing the appellant by instructing him to join the School against 3rd post of peon (Night Watchman- cum-Sweeper). Said Order of the Headmaster has been the subject-matter of challenge in W.P.(C) No.29187 of 2019. 4. It is the stand of the respondents in the counter affidavit filed by the District Education Officer that the appellant had questioned the propriety of Order dated 13.10.2009 of the District Education Officer before this Court in W.P.(C) No.18128 of 2009, which was dismissed for nonprosecution vide Order dated 11.07.2017. However, in compliance of direction issued vide Order dated 07.03.2019 in W.P.(C) No.122 of 2019 to consider the representation, the said Officer had disposed of the same by directing reinstatement of the appellant in 3rd post of peon as he was found to be junior most in the category of peon. 4.1. In the counter affidavit the District Education Officer clarified that the School had three peons who were duly appointed by way of Resolution of the Managing Committee. Sri Trilochan Senapati being appointed by Resolution dated 16.03.1987, joined in service against 1st post of peon on 21.03.1987; whereas Sri Gayadhar Nayak being appointed by Resolution dated 11.04.1988, joined in service as peon (Watchman-cum-Sweeper). Though his service was approved as such initially, the same got subsequently modified by Order dated 13.10.2009. Later to joining of said Gayadhar Nayak, the instant appellant joined in service on 18.01.2001 pursuant to Resolution of the Managing Committee dated 10.01.2001. His service was approved by way of modification in said Order dated 13.10.2009 to perform as Night Watchman-cum-Sweeper. 4.2. The action has been stated to be justified in the counter affidavit that the Headmaster of the School, being the Secretary of the Managing Committee, is authorised to carry out instructions imparted and decisions taken by the Managing Committee and the higher authorities. 4.3. 4.2. The action has been stated to be justified in the counter affidavit that the Headmaster of the School, being the Secretary of the Managing Committee, is authorised to carry out instructions imparted and decisions taken by the Managing Committee and the higher authorities. 4.3. Perusal of the impugned Judgment of the learned Single Judge transpires that an affidavit sworn to by the District Education Officer was filed before the writ Court affirming specifically therein that the appellant did not join the School despite direction of the Headmaster of the School. 5. With the aforesaid backdrop of facts, this Court took up the writ appeal for entertainment. Heard Sri Prasanta Kumar Jena, learned Advocate for the appellant and Sri Manoj Kumar Khuntia, learned Additional Government Advocate. 6. Sri Prasanta Kumar Jena learned Advocate submitted that the learned Single Judge fell in grave error in considering the legality of modification of order of approval as the same is impermissible under law. Advancing his argument further, he submitted that there is no principle envisaged that the Science Attendant (second post of peon) vis-a-vis the Watchman-cum-Sweeper (third post of peon) shall be assigned in the order of seniority. It is strenuously contended by referring to Office Order No.2376 dated 28.03.2009 of the Inspector of Schools, Balasore that since the services of the present appellant had already been approved with effect from 01.04.2008 in the post of 'Peon' in Nanda Kishore High School, Tilada, there was no occasion for modification of such approval by way of issue of further Order dated 13.10.2009. 6.1. Sri Prasanta Kumar Jena, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently urged that the respondent No.6 was appointed against fourth post of Peon, which is meant for 'Night Watchman- cum-Sweeper' by virtue of Resolution No.13 dated 11.04.1988 of the Managing Committee of the School, which is apparent from Annexure-5 enclosed to the writ appeal. Having his service being approved by the District Education Officer, Balasore, the same could not have been allowed to be modified with effect from 01.04.2008 on the specious plea of the change contained in the Amendment Order, 2008. 6.2. Having his service being approved by the District Education Officer, Balasore, the same could not have been allowed to be modified with effect from 01.04.2008 on the specious plea of the change contained in the Amendment Order, 2008. 6.2. Winding up his argument, the learned counsel for the appellant urged that in the garb of rectification, the approval already accorded to the appointment of the appellant in the second post of Peon (Science Attendant), the challenge being made against the Order dated 13.10.2009 of the Inspector of Schools, does deserve to be interfered with and as a consequence thereof, the respondents-authorities are required to be directed to accept the joining of the appellant in the post of second post of Peon (Science Attendant). 7. Responding to the averments made and contentions put forth in the writ appeal, Mr. Manoj Kumar Khuntia, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents-functionaries of the State of Odisha, vehemently opposed admission of the writ appeal and pleaded to dismiss the same in limine, contending that the writ appeal, being devoid of merit, needs no consideration. 7.1. He submitted that appropriate reasoned order has been placed in the impugned Judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge, which does not warrant any indulgence. In view of the ratio laid down in Union of India Vrs. Godfrey Phillips India Ltd., (1985) 4 SCC 369 , as referred to by the learned Single Judge, no promissory estoppel can be attracted to the public authority in case any error in approval occurred. When it is admitted fact and not disputed by the appellant that Gayadhar Nayak (respondent No.6) was appointed by issue of Letter dated 12.04.1988 by the Secretary of Nanda Kishore High School, Tilada against fourth post of Peon pursuant to Resolution dated 11.04.1988 of the Managing Committee of the School, he was senior to the appellant. Therefore, Mr. Manoj Kumar Khuntia, learned Additional Government Advocate urged that inadvertent mistake on the part of the Inspector of Schools got rectified by Order dated 13.10.2009, keeping in mind that the senior employee would be adjusted against second post of peon and next below employee would get the third position. 7.2. Therefore, Mr. Manoj Kumar Khuntia, learned Additional Government Advocate urged that inadvertent mistake on the part of the Inspector of Schools got rectified by Order dated 13.10.2009, keeping in mind that the senior employee would be adjusted against second post of peon and next below employee would get the third position. 7.2. Under the aforesaid premises, it is submitted by the learned Additional Government Advocate that the learned Single Judge having correctly appreciated facts emanating from material available on record and held that legality of Amendment Order(s), 2008 being not questioned, the action of the Headmaster instructing the appellant to join in the 3rd post of peon, i.e., Watchman-cum- Sweeper does not deserve interference. 8. Considered the rival contentions, heard arguments of counsel for respective parties and perused the records. 9. The yardstick has been specified for entitlement of peons in the Circulars of the year 1981 and 1992 of the Government of Orissa in Education and Youth Services Department and the nature and the number of peons are prescribed in the Amendment Order, 2008 made to the Orissa Education (Payment of Grant-in-Aid to High Schools, Upper Primary Schools, etc.) Order, 2004, issued in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (4) of Section 7C of the Orissa Education Act, 1969. 9.1. Circular bearing No.28465/EYS, dated 8th July, 1981, issued by the Government of Orissa in Education and Youth Services, so far as relevant for the present purpose, is reproduced hereunder: 'I am directed to say that the question of fixation of standard staff for the non-Government Secondary Schools has been felt necessary by the Government due to introduction of the revised syllabus under 10 years schools pattern. After careful consideration of various aspects, Government have now been pleased to decide that the standard staff both teaching and non-teaching for different categories of non-Government Secondary Schools shall be follows: A. For the Schools having no additional sections: Category of staff (1) 3-Class (2) 5- Class (3) 7- Class (4) 1 to 8 *** 9. After careful consideration of various aspects, Government have now been pleased to decide that the standard staff both teaching and non-teaching for different categories of non-Government Secondary Schools shall be follows: A. For the Schools having no additional sections: Category of staff (1) 3-Class (2) 5- Class (3) 7- Class (4) 1 to 8 *** 9. Peons- (i) Office peon 1 1 1 (ii) Science Attendant 1 1 1 (iii) Night Watchercum-Sweeper 1 1 1 Note.- *** (C) Additional post of Clerks/Peons.- (i) Where the roll strength of the school exceeds 1,000 or more one post of U.D.C. would be admissible in addition to the existing post of L.D.C. (ii) Where the roll strength of the school exceeds 100 one post ofDaftary is admissible. (iii) For the schools running in shift system for shortage of accommodation one additional post of peon is admissible. The above yardstick will come into force with effect from 1s July, 1981. ***' 9.2. Aforesaid Circular dated 8th July, 1981 has been modified by way of issue of Circular bearing No. 15500-SVIIEP-50/91/E, dated 27th March, 1992, with respect to the post of 'Peon' and 'Daftary' to the following extent: 'I am directed to say that the question of fixation of revised yardstick for appointment of Class IV employees in Non-Government Secondary Schools shall be as follows: Category of staff (1) 3- Class (2) 5- Class (3) 7- Class (4) (i) Office Peon 1 1 1 (ii) Science Attendant 1 1 1 (iii) Night Watcher-cum-Sweeper 1 1 1 Where the roll strength of a 3-class High School is 500 (five hundred) or more one post of Daftary is admissible. For the schools running in shift system for shortage of accommodation one additional post of peon is admissible. The above yardstick will come into force with effect from 01.01.1992 and Government order referred to above stands modified to the extent indicated above.' 9.3. As is apparent from the Amendment Order, 2008 Office Peon, Science Attendant, Night Watchman- cum -Sweeper come under the category 'Peon'. The above yardstick will come into force with effect from 01.01.1992 and Government order referred to above stands modified to the extent indicated above.' 9.3. As is apparent from the Amendment Order, 2008 Office Peon, Science Attendant, Night Watchman- cum -Sweeper come under the category 'Peon'. It transpires from one of the grounds agitated by the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent No.6 being appointed against the 4th peon post of Night Watchman- cum-Sweeper and being approved by the Inspector of Schools, such position could not be changed after approval of the appellant in the post of 'peon' by virtue of Office Order dated 28.03.2009 and was assigned to work as 'Science Attendant'. Close reading of said Office Order dated 28.03.2009 vide Annexure-4 to the writ appeal indicates that 'the services of Sri Purusottam Swain (appellant), Peon, Nanda Kishore High School, Tilada' has been approved with effect from 01.04.2008. There is no indication of approval being accorded in the post of 'Peon' to work as 'Science Attendant'. The Amendment Order, 2008 clearly specifies that 3 peons in the order of Office Peon, Science Attendant and Watchman-cum-Sweeper can be appointed by eligible High School. 9.4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Orissa Vrs. Rajendra Kumar Das (2003) 10 SCO 411 = AIR 2003 SC 1009 = 2004 (I) OLR (SC) 517, repelling the stance 'According to State Government the post of 'Daftary' is a promotional post and therefore, the concept of forth peon as sought to be canvassed by the writ petitioners is without any legal foundation', expressed the view by holding that: 'It is to be noted that post of 'Daftary' carries higher scale of pay and is a promotional post for Class IV employees. That being the position, the High Court was not justified in directing approval of the writ petitioners' services as fourth peon'. But one significant aspect cannot be lost sight of. If a school was entitled to have a 'Daftary', certainly the appointment was to be made by promoting one of the three persons i. e. Office Peon, Office Attendant and Night Watcher-cum-Sweeper, there being no other class IV post in the institution. It is for the Managing Committee of the institution to decide who is to be promoted and thereafter seek approval of the concerned authorities. It is for the Managing Committee of the institution to decide who is to be promoted and thereafter seek approval of the concerned authorities. That way the claims of the writ petitioners could have been considered by the authorities, on being appropriately moved by the Management. It is undisputed that the writ petitioners were appointed by the Managing Committee, may be under a misreading of the relevant Government Orders.' 9.5. In view of said Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Kuumar Das (Supra) and the Judgment of this Court in Dipak. Kumar Sahoo Vrs. State of Odisha, 1999 (II) OLR 176 , there is no manner of doubt persists that the post of 'Daftari' is a promotional post and is to be filled up by way of promotion from amongst the Peons on the basis of merit-cum-suitability with due regard to seniority. 9.6. The case of Rajendra Kumar Das (supra), was a case of 4th post of peon appointed by the Management Committee which was not accorded approval, yet in such circumstance, the Hon'ble Supreme Court came to direct as follows: '10. We, therefore, while allowing these appeals direct that the Management of the concerned institution shall move the concerned authorities for approval to the promotional appointment of a Class IV employee, as 'Daftary'. Simultaneously, it can also recommend for appointment to the Class IV post, in case approval is accorded to the recommendation for appointment of 'Daftary' on promotion. The decision on both motions shall be taken within three months from the date of submission of the recommendation in accordance with law keeping in view the operative yardsticks in force at the time of appointments were made. Even if there has been refusal earlier, the matter shall be reconsidered in the light of what has been stated above.' 9.7. Thus being clarity with respect to appointment of 'Daftary', promotional post, to be selected from amongst the Peons on the basis of merit-cum-seniority, the remaining peons are to be adjusted in their respective positions maintaining seniority. Even if there has been refusal earlier, the matter shall be reconsidered in the light of what has been stated above.' 9.7. Thus being clarity with respect to appointment of 'Daftary', promotional post, to be selected from amongst the Peons on the basis of merit-cum-seniority, the remaining peons are to be adjusted in their respective positions maintaining seniority. It is asserted by the District Education Office in his counter affidavit before the writ Court that Sri Gayadhar Nayak was approved as Peon (Watchman- cum-Sweeper) including all other staff of the School with effect from 01.04.2008, when at the relevant period only two posts of peons were admissible in the High Schools entitled for Grant-in-Aid as per Government Order No.5061/SME, dated 10.03.2008. 9.8. Perusal of said Order dated 10.03.2008, i.e., the Orissa Education (Payment of Grant-in-Aid to High Schools, Upper Primary Schools, etc.) Amendment Order, 2008 it has been stipulated as follows: '(b) qualified non-teaching employees shall be that there shall be that there shall be only one Junior Clerk, one Office Peon and one Watchman-cum-Sweeper for every eligible High School. ' 9.9. But said Amendment Order of 2008 vide No.IX-SME (Sch.)-29/06- 5061, dated 10.03.2008 got further notified by Order No.23611-IX-SME (Sch.)-35/2008- SME, dated 08.12.2008, which is called as 'the Orissa Education (Payment of Grant-in-Aid to High Schools, Upper Primary Schools, etc.) Order, 2008', by virtue of which, the Orissa Education (Payment of Grant-in-Aid to High Schools, Upper Primary Schools etc.) Order, 2004 was sought to be amended in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (4) of Section 7C of the Orissa Education Act, 1969. With respect to 'Peons' the following amendment was brought into force with effect from 01.04.2008 by way of publication in the Orissa Gazette, Extraordinary No.2357, dated 26.12.2008: ' 3.3.(b)- Qualify non-teaching employees shall consist of only one junior clerk, three peons, i.e., one office peon, one science attendant and one watchman-cum-sweeper for every eligible High School.' 9.10. By this Amendment Order, 2008, it is made abundantly unambiguous that the posts of three Peons have been chronologically set forth, viz., one Office peon, one Science Attendant and one Watchman-cum-Sweeper. It is, thus, clear that the date of appointment is, as normally perceived in service jurisprudence, the starting point of the computation of the length of service. The date of entry into the service is the relevant factor. It is, thus, clear that the date of appointment is, as normally perceived in service jurisprudence, the starting point of the computation of the length of service. The date of entry into the service is the relevant factor. Late comers cannot steal a march over early arrivals, who were already in regular queue. 9.11. In the case of Ram Janam Singh Vrs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1994) 1 SCR 316 it has been laid down that the date of entry into service is relevant factor for consideration of seniority. The following is the observation made in the said reported case: 'It is now almost settled that seniority of an officer in service is determined with reference to the date of his entry in the service, which will be consistent with the requirement of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Of course, if the circumstances so require a group of persons, can be treated a class separate from the rest, for any preferential or beneficial treatment while fixing their seniority. But, whether such group of persons belong to a special class for any special treatment, in matters of seniority, has to be decided on objective consideration and on taking into account relevant factors which can stand the test of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. ' 9.12. Perusal of record transpires that the appellant having joined on 18.01.2001, his service as 'Peon' was approved with effect from 01.04.2008, and the service of Gayadhar Nayak (respondent No.6), who was admittedly senior to the appellant, having joined on 16.04.1988 was placed as Night Watchman- cum-Sweeper. Realising mistake the District Education Officer modified and positioned both the peons appropriately. In the said modification of Order of approval, the appellant was placed at third post of Peon (Watchman-cum-Sweeper), which is stated to be in consonance with Order No.23611-IH-SME (SCH.)-35/2008-SME, dated 08.12.2008 (i.e., the Amendment Order, 2008). It may not be inapt to say that an employee cannot be made to suffer due to a bona fide mistake of fact committed by the functionary of the Government. 9.13. The learned Single Judge also has taken note that Gayahdar Nayak, being senior to the appellant, is entitled to the second post (Science Attendant) and thereby the appellant has no right to claim the said post. 9.14. In this respect, the norms of seniority may be relevant to be taken note of. 9.13. The learned Single Judge also has taken note that Gayahdar Nayak, being senior to the appellant, is entitled to the second post (Science Attendant) and thereby the appellant has no right to claim the said post. 9.14. In this respect, the norms of seniority may be relevant to be taken note of. According to Black's Law Dictionary (6th Edition) 'seniority' means: 'Precedence or preference in position over others similarly situated. As used, for example, with reference to job seniority, worker with most years or service is first promoted within range of jobs subject to seniority, and is the last laid off, proceeding so on down the line to the youngest in point of service'. 9.15. In Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Oil Seeds Growers Federation Ltd. Vrs. D. Achyuta Rao, (2007) 4 SCR 1 it has been held that: '*** Even the learned Single Judge was hesitant in accepting seniority by reference to dates of promotion granted in Unions. The learned Judge, therefore, ingeniously worked out a chart and identified a date which, if taken as the date of promotion, would cause least inconvenience to the employees. Unfortunately such a principle cannot be followed in service matters where seniority confers a very valuable right on an employee and his entire future career is at times dependent upon such seniority. Seniority, therefore, must be determined by rules validly framed or norms enunciated and/or followed which are consistent with the principles enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. ' 9.16. In Bhey Ram Vrs. The Haryana State Electricity Board, (1993) Supp. (2) SCR 219, it is succinctly stated as follows: 'It is well-known that while determining the seniority of an officer, the date of his appointment is more important factor than the date of his joining. *** This Court has examined the question of fixation of seniority inter se between officers appointed from different sources, i.e., by promotion and by process of direct recruitment. It is almost settled that while determining the inter se seniority amongst officers recruited from different sources or between officers appointed by the same process at different times, the date of entering in the service is relevant. A person who enters in the service first shall rank senior unless there is some Rule providing otherwise which can be held to be consistent with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. A person who enters in the service first shall rank senior unless there is some Rule providing otherwise which can be held to be consistent with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Reference in this connection may be made to the cases of N.K Chauhan Vrs. State of Gujrat, AIR 1977 SC 251 ; Paramjit Singh Vrs. Ram Rakha Mal, AIR 1983 SC 314 ; A. Janardhana Vrs. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 769 and A.N. Pathak Vrs. Secy. to the Govt., Ministry of Defence, AIR 1987 SC 716 . The same view was approved by a Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association Vrs. State of Maharashtra, (1990) 2 SCC 715 .' 9.17. It remained factually undisputed that the appellant was junior to the respondent No.6. It is seen that although the services of the appellant in the post of 'Peon' at Nanda Kishore High School, Tilada, were approved on 28.03.2009, the same was later modified by the Inspector of Schools by appropriately positioning the respondent No.6 by an Order dated 13.10.2009. Consequently, the services of the respondent No.6-Gayadhar Nayak, Peon was approved as 'Science Attendant' and the services of appellant-Purusottam Swain as 'Peon' (Night Watchman-cum,-Sweeper) with effect from 01.04.2008. 10. It is noteworthy that the learned Single Judge has taken a view on consideration of order of seniority having regard to entry into service as 'Peon' that the appellant was the junior most and being wrongly issued with approval of his service against second post of Peon, such an inadvertent act of the Authority cannot confer any inviolable right on him and, thereby no promissory estoppel would be attracted in the present case. It is trite that if any mistake is committed by an Authority and on its detection, the same was rectified by modifying the order, no infirmity can be imputed. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly refused to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In this respect, the learned Single Judge has rightly noticed that no person can take advantage of mistake committed by the Authority, whereby certain benefit/status was conferred upon him. 11. The Amendment Order, 2008 recognizes 'Office Peon', 'Science Attendant' and 'Watchman-cum-Sweeper' under one category, viz., 'Peon'. In this respect, the learned Single Judge has rightly noticed that no person can take advantage of mistake committed by the Authority, whereby certain benefit/status was conferred upon him. 11. The Amendment Order, 2008 recognizes 'Office Peon', 'Science Attendant' and 'Watchman-cum-Sweeper' under one category, viz., 'Peon'. Therefore, the question of assigning of seniority arises only in relation to employees who are similarly situated, i.e., where they are functioning in the same rank, grade or cadre. This is because seniority is a comparative or relative concept. Pondering thus, it is safe to say that there is no illegality committed by the learned Single Judge in holding that the authority concerned is competent to rectify the mistake committed in assigning seniority on the basis of dates of entry into service by the respondent No.6 and the appellant. 12. The scope of interference with the undisputed finding of the learned Single Judge that the appellant is junior to respondent No.6 is very limited in consideration of appeal under Clause-10 of the Letters Patent constituting the High Court of Judicature at Patna read with Article 4 of the Orissa High Court Rules, 1948. It is laid down in the case of Wander Limited Vrs. Antox India Pvt. Ltd., (1990) Supp. (1) SCC 727 = AIRONLINE 1990 SC 156 that the appellate Court should not substitute its own view against a view taken in exercise of discretion by the learned Single Judge, except where such discretion has been shown to have been arbitrary or capricious or ignorance of certain principle of law. It is also not out of context to say that if the learned Single Judge has applied his mind in good faith with due regard to the relevant material available on record, even if two views are possible, the Division Bench in writ appeal should not take a different view. 13. In such view of the matter, having found no manifest error in the Judgment of the learned Single Judge warranting interference, the writ appeal, sans merit, is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the writ appeal is dismissed, but in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.