JUDGMENT : Ananda Sen, J. Notice has been validly served upon respondent nos. 6 to 9. The respondent no. 5 has already been superannuated. Inspite of valid service of notice to the respondents no one is appearing, thus this Court is proceeding ex-parte against respondent nos. 6 to 9. The order passed in this case will not have any effect on respondent no. 5 as he has already superannuated and the matter relates to interse seniority. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State, at length. 3. The petitioner is a qualified doctor and was appointed as Civil Assistant Surgeon in the State of Bihar. After bifurcation of the State of Bihar the petitioner was allocated Jharkhand cadre. He was working as Civil Assistant Surgeon. 4. In the State of Jharkhand under the Government there were initially two Medical Colleges, namely, Patliputra Medical College and Hospital at Dhanbad and Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Medical College at Jamshedpur. To fill up the post of teaching staffs in these two medical colleges, the Government of Jharkhand, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare issued an advertisement on 01.10.2004. The posts which were to be filled were vacant and sanctioned posts of Assistant Professor, Senior Resident and Tutor. The appointments were to be made from the doctors who were working in different government hospitals. The petitioner who was a doctor and was working as Civil Assistant Surgeon applied for the post of Senior Resident for Patliputra Medical College and Hospital, Dhanbad as option was given to the applicant to opt for any one of the college or both. The department conducted interview for both the medical colleges on different dates. For Dhanbad, the interview was conducted on 23.12.2004. Vide notification dated 02.03.2005 the Government declared the results of the selection process which was conducted for filling up the post of Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Medical College, Jamshedpur only but the result for Patliputra Medical College and Hospital, Dhanbad was not published. The doctors who were selected for Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Medical College, Jamshedpur joined the service. Thereafter on 08.04.2006 the results for the post of Patliputra Medical College and Hospital, Dhanbad was published. The petitioner thus joined on 10.04.2006. The doctors who were selected for Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Medical College, Jamshedpur joined the service. Thereafter on 08.04.2006 the results for the post of Patliputra Medical College and Hospital, Dhanbad was published. The petitioner thus joined on 10.04.2006. Since there was a single cadre for both the hospitals, a joint and combined merit list was published and in the unified merit list, the seniority was fixed on the basis of the date of joining. Since the petitioner joined after the doctors who joined in Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Medical College, Jamshedpur, he was placed below them, though admittedly, as per merits he secured more marks than others. Be it noted that the petitioner has obtained 66.20 percentage marks and Dr. J.P. Mishra who was shown no. 1 in Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Medical College, Jamshedpur has obtained only 53 percentage marks. 5. On the objection of the petitioner a separate merit list was prepared which is at Annexure-4. The newly prepared seniority list was a separate merit list, one for Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Medical College, Jamshedpur and the other for Patliputra Medical College and Hospital, Dhanbad. The petitioner was shown to be senior-most in Patliputra Medical College and Hospital, Dhanbad. Thereafter on 29.05.2015 again a combined merit list was published wherein the petitioner was shown at sl. no. 8 in seniority list whereas the names of the respondent nos. 5 to 9 (Doctors of MGM Medical College) are reflected above the petitioner, though the petitioner has admittedly obtained more marks than the others. The grievance of the petitioner is that when there is a single cadre and there is no separation of cadre in Medicines amongst the doctors of Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Medical College, Jamshedpur and Patliputra Medical College and Hospital, Dhanbad, in the combined merit list since the petitioner has obtained more marks than the others, he should be positioned above them and should be made the senior most. 6. The respondents have relied upon the Circular of Government of Bihar dated 16.04.1956 wherein it has been prescribed that if two such persons had been drawing pay at the same stage in the identical time- scale of the two services, their seniority on promotion shall be fixed according to age. 6. The respondents have relied upon the Circular of Government of Bihar dated 16.04.1956 wherein it has been prescribed that if two such persons had been drawing pay at the same stage in the identical time- scale of the two services, their seniority on promotion shall be fixed according to age. As per the respondents since the petitioner is younger to the other persons whose names have been reflected above the petitioner in the seniority list, seniority of the petitioner is fixed likewise. 7. Admittedly the petitioner was appointed as a Senior Resident in Patliputra Medical College and Hospital, Dhanbad. This appointment is pursuant to an advertisement which was published by the Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand. It is only the doctors who were working in different hospitals of Government are eligible to apply for the same. The appointment was not from open source. Further from the Advertisement at Annexure-1 it is clear that the State wanted to fill up those posts which were vacant and sanctioned, by appointment and not by promotion. Thus, filling up this post pursuant to Advertisement at Annexure-1 is not by way of promotion rather it is by way of fresh appointment. When the appointment is fresh appointment, the Circular of the Government dated 16.04.1956 which has been relied upon by the State to fix the seniority is not applicable as the same is applied only in case of promotion. Here different doctors who were working under the Government in hospitals have applied for appointment afresh against the vacancies which were published to fill up the posts in Medical Colleges. 8. The State admits that the cadre is one which includes the doctors in Medicines of both the Medical Colleges i.e. Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Medical College, Jamshedpur and Patliputra Medical College and Hospital, Dhanbad. When the cadre is one, the State cannot publish two separate sets of seniority list for both the colleges. Seniority list should be one including the names of the employees of both the colleges. This has been done which is evident from Annexure-9 which is the unified seniority list, which is under challenge in this application on the ground that the petitioner has been shown junior to the others. The preparation of the unified seniority list cannot be said to be faulty. 9. This has been done which is evident from Annexure-9 which is the unified seniority list, which is under challenge in this application on the ground that the petitioner has been shown junior to the others. The preparation of the unified seniority list cannot be said to be faulty. 9. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has been placed at sl. no. 8 in the seniority list of Medicine stream whereas he should have been placed at sl. no. 1, because the petitioner has obtained much more marks than all the other selected candidates. The fact that the petitioner has obtained highest marks amongst the other candidates of Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Medical College, Jamshedpur and Patliputra Medical College and Hospital, Dhanbad in Medicines is not disputed. The respondents have fixed the seniority on the basis of the date of birth and date of joining. 10. So far as fixing the seniority based on the date of birth is concerned, I have already held that the same cannot be done in this case on the basis of the Circular which the respondents are relying upon. Circular is in relation to fixing seniority in the case of promotion, which is not the case here, that too, from two different service. 11. So far as fixing of seniority on the basis of the date of joining is concerned admittedly the petitioner joined on 10.04.2006 and the respondent nos. 5 to 9 joined in the year 2004 and 2005 i.e. prior to the date when the petitioner joined. Joining of the petitioner was delayed because the result so far as it related to Patliputra Medical College and Hospital, Dhanbad was not published along with the result of Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Medical College, Jamshedpur. Admittedly result of Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Medical College, Jamshedpur was published on 02.03.2005 and the result of Patliputra Medical College and Hospital, Dhanbad was published on 08.04.2006. Since the result for the filling of the post of Patliputra Medical College and Hospital, Dhanbad was published later, the petitioner joined later. Naturally the petitioner joined after the respondent nos. 5 to 9 and there was no fault on the part of the petitioner for this delayed joining. The entire delay in this process is attributable to the respondents. Since the result for the filling of the post of Patliputra Medical College and Hospital, Dhanbad was published later, the petitioner joined later. Naturally the petitioner joined after the respondent nos. 5 to 9 and there was no fault on the part of the petitioner for this delayed joining. The entire delay in this process is attributable to the respondents. When there was delay on the part of the respondents to publish the results of Patliputra Medical College and Hospital, Dhanbad, the date of joining for fixing seniority loses its relevance. In this scenario it is only the merits of the candidates which should have been considered and should have been the basis for fixing seniority. 12. Admittedly the petitioner is more meritorious than the others as the petitioner has obtained 66.20 percent in Medicine which none of the other doctors in Medicine has obtained. Thus the petitioner being more meritorious should have been placed at sl. no. 1 in the combined merit list. Making the petitioner junior to the persons who are not meritorious than the petitioner, only on the basis of the date of joining, which was delayed so far as the petitioner is concerned, because of the act of the respondents, is improper and unjustified. 13. Similar issue arose before the the Hon’ble apex court in the case of Suresh Chandra Jha v. State of Bihar and Others reported in (2007) 1 SCC 405 in which it was held that merit should have been criteria to decide the seniority. The relevant paragraphs are necessary to be quoted- “ 6. There is no dispute that the appellant was ranked higher to Respondent 8. There is also no dispute that in the appointment letter the appellant was given six weeks' time to join. Merely because Respondent 8 joined earlier that did not in any way affect the merit placement.” … ……………………………………………………………………… “ 8. Since there was no rule in operation, obviously the ranking in the merit list was to decide the respective seniority. The ratio in Chairman, Puri Gramya Bank case [ (1994) 6 SCC 301 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 1384 : (1994) 28 ATC 293] has full application to the facts of the case. The appellant's claim that he was to be treated as senior to Respondent 8 was rightly accepted by the learned Single Judge. The ratio in Chairman, Puri Gramya Bank case [ (1994) 6 SCC 301 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 1384 : (1994) 28 ATC 293] has full application to the facts of the case. The appellant's claim that he was to be treated as senior to Respondent 8 was rightly accepted by the learned Single Judge. Unfortunately, the Division Bench did not address itself to the specific question and has placed undue stress on Respondent 8 having joined earlier.” 14. Thus, I direct the respondents to revise the initial seniority list and place the petitioner at serial no. 1 in the seniority list above the respondent nos. 6 to 9 so far as Medicine is concerned. The petitioner should also get consequential benefits of being placed at serial no. 1 in the seniority list. In respect of his other promotion and benefits, if it is necessary to revise the subsequent seniority list, the same should also be done by the respondents. Entire process should be concluded within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 15. This writ application stands allowed only to the extent directed aforesaid. Seniority of the petitioner in the consequent promotions should also be revised considering his seniority to be no. 1 in the seniority list which was prepared on 29.05.2015 vide Memo No. 84(9) published by the Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare.