JUDGMENT

1. Leave granted in the special leave petitions.

2. These appeals have a chequered history. But it is not necessary to burden the judgment with minute details of the entire history of the case. Suffice it to state that Major Y ogendra Narain Yadav, the appellant in the main appeal, was a Short Commissioned Officer in the Army as Engineer and was appointed on April IS, 1963 and was released from the Army on October 25, 1970. Pursuant to an advertisement for appointment to a post of a temporary Asstt. Engineer made in 1973 he was selected by the Public Service Commission and was appointed to that post on July 29, 1974. The Government of Bihar had issued Circular dated June 21, 1969 in which it was stated that 30% of the posts of permanent as well as temporary Engineers were available to the demobilised Army officers and the date of entry into the State service would be the date of their attaining the age of eligibility for appointment in the military service or actual date of entry, whichever is later. Pursuant thereto, the appellant made a request by a memorandum to the Government to consider his case for permanent post available to the demobilised officers and appoint him to that post with effect from the date on which he joined the Army as Commissioned Officer. Request was acceded to and an Sectioner came to be passed by proceedings dated December 6, 1977 giving him the date of his permanent appointment for the purpose of seniority in terms of the Government Circular dated June 21,1969 with effect from April 15, 1963. Thus he became a permanent Assistant Engineer in Bihar Roads and Buildings Department, which was formerly known as Public Works Department.

3. The question arose: whether he would be senior to the respondents. After giving him the notional date, he was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer. It appears that the respondents filed a writ petition in the High Court which is the subject matter of c.A. No. 1394/91. There was difference of opinion between two learned judges and consequently reference to third learned Judge was made. It was held per majority that the appointment of the appellant as Executive Engineer without considering the claims of the respondents was not correct in law. Pending appeal, this Court had given direction to the Government by Sectioner dated April 1, 1991 thus:

"The DPC to be constituted and to take the decision as directed by the High Court without delay. The decision being taken by the DPC it will be implemented subject to the result of the Appeal.

Till the decision is taken by the OPC the appellant will not be reverted."

4. From the recSection, it is clear that OPC was constituted but his case was negatived.

Consequently, he filed a writ petition in the High Court, viz., CWJC No. 1563/92 which went against the appellant. When SLP bearing No. 6794/94 was filed, this Court directed that a fresh OPC be constituted and in furtherance thereof the OPC was constituted and the claims of all the respective persons were considered. The appellant was found eligible for the promotion as Executive Engineer and thereafter as a Superintending Engineer and then as a Chief Engineer and ultimately as Engineer-in-Chief by proceedings dated May 16, 1994 and he was accSectioningly promoted. This promotion gave rise to filing of further writ petitions in the High Court which are the subject matters in other appeals. The High Court has held that since the respondents were already working as on the dated when the appellant had entered the service as Executive Engineers though as temporary Assistant Engineers, their seniority has to be reckoned from the date of their initial appointment. Thereby they became senior to the appellant. As a result, he cannot be promoted as against them. It appears that pursuant to the directions issued in those writ petitions another OPC was constituted and promotions were given to the respondents. When it was sought to get those promotions stayed and to continue him