Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has approached this court with the following prayers: (i) For issuance of direction for quashing of the seniority list as contained in Memo No. 283(S) WE dated 09.01.2013 issued under the signature of the respondent Engineer in Chief in so far as the seniority position of the petitioner, who is an appointee of the year 1981, is concerned as the petitioner has been placed at the bottom of the seniority list to his serious detriment at Sl. No. 1003 and whereas several juniors/appointees of much later date even of the year 2008 have been ranked/placed ahead of the petitioner. (ii) For issuance of order upon the respondent authorities to place and rank the petitioner at appropriate place in the seniority list (at Sl. No. 215) on the basis of the date of appointment and in the light of the Govt. Notification contained in Memo No. 6843 (S) dated 24.11.2010. (iii) For issuance of direction upon the respondent authorities to consider the real seniority and entitlement of promotion of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Engineer on the basis of the date of appointment of the petitioner. (iv) For issuance of direction upon the respondent authorities to not to act upon and take up the matter of promotion of the Junior Engineers on the higher post of Assistant Engineer until and unless the anomaly with respect to the standing/ranking of the petitioner in the gradation list is removed. The brief facts of the case as disclosed in the writ petition are that, the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Engineer vide Notification dated 21.12.1981 in the Engineering Cell, Department of Education, Government of Bihar and he gave his joining on 28.12.1981. By Government Notification dated 08.02.1994, the service of the employees of the Engineering Cell, Department of Education was directed to be merged with the Building Construction Department, however, the cadre of the employees was not merged. Finally, after considering the approval of the Department of Building Construction, Department of Rural Works, Finance Department and the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa, by Notification dated 24.11.2010, the Government took a decision to merge the cadre of the petitioner and other 5 persons of the Department of Education into the cadre of the Department of the Building and Road Construction. Since the seniority of the petitioner has not been decided in terms of Notification dated 24.11.2010 and circular dated 26.08.1972 and the petitioner who ought to have been placed at Sl. No. 215 has been placed at Sl. No. 1003, aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this court by filing the present writ petition.
(2.) A counter -affidavit has been filed by the Respondent -State of Bihar stating that. 6. That the fact is that the petitioner had been appointed by Education Department, Government of Bihar on ad -hoc basis in the year 1981, vide notification No. 2242 dated 21.12.1981. 7. That later on the service of the Junior Engineers including the petitioner who were appointed by Education Department was placed with Building Construction Department 8. That the matter of merger to those Junior Engineers who were appointed by Education Department was under consideration before the Road Construction Department and finally the petitioner's service alongwith other 5 Junior Engineers have been merged in this Department after approval of the State Government vide Notification No. 6843 (S) dated 24.11.2010. 9. That it is quite pertinent to mention here that primarily the petitioner was appointed in the Education Department on ad -hoc basis only for six months. 10. That the principles of for Gradation laid down in the letter No. 15784 dated 26.08.72 of the Appointment Department, clearly shows that the duration of the ad -hoc appointment would not be counted for inter -se -seniority. It is also clearly mentioned in that letter that if one requests to transfer his services in another services, then the period of previous services could not be count for seniority. 11. That the petitioner's service has been merged in Road Construction Department on 24.11.2010. So the seniority of the petitioner will be counted from the date of merger, as per rule. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the documents on record. Since the specific prayer of the petitioner is for a direction for determining his seniority in terms of Notification dated 24.11.2010, the Respondent Nos. 6 to 12 are not being noticed and with the consent of the counsel for the appearing parties the petition is being finally disposed of at the admission stage itself.
(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that in view of the specific reasons assigned in para -2 of the Notification dated 24.11.2010 for ordering the merger of the cadre of the petitioner and other 5 persons of the Education Department into the cadre of the employees of the Building and Road Construction Department and the normal rule of seniority, the petitioner's place in the seniority list has to be decided on the basis of the date of the initial appointment of the petitioner. He has further submitted that the petitioner has been appointed on a permanent post and therefore, the initial appointment of the petitioner, though ad -hoc, would be also counted for seniority as upon confirmation of his appointment on the said post, the date of his initial appointment would be the relevant date from which his seniority should be counted.;