S.Sarwar Ali, J.

1. These four writ applications have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.

2. In C.W.J.C. No. 1787 of 1969 the petitioner has prayed for quashing of Annexures 21 and 22 and fixing the seniority of the petitioner in accordance with law. Annexure 21 is the gradation list of permanent Assistant Engineers of Public Health Engineer Department. Annexure 22 is the communication rejecting the representation of the petitioner in relation to his seniority. During the pendency of the writ application a prayer has been made that the petitioner may be declared as senior and placed next to Respondent No. 6 (S. Narayan) in the rank of Executive Engineer as well as in the rank of Superintending Engineer. It is prayed that respondents 1 and 2 be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion in the rank of Additional Chief Engineer treating him to be senior to Respondent No. 10 (R.R.B.P, Sinha).

3. C.W.J.C.1786/69 is an application by Kamta Prasad Sinha in which he has prayed for quashing of Annexure 4 to the writ petition which is the final inter-seniority list of Assistant Engineers (being the same as Annexure 21 to C.W.J.C. 1787/69). It is further prayed that the seniority of the petitioner be fixed in accordance with law.

4. C.W.J.C. 1043/78 is also another writ petition by Kamta Prasad Sinha (who is Respondent No. 25 in C.W.J.C. 1787/69) praying that the petitioner should be treated as senior to Respondents No. 3 and 4 (R.R.B.P. Sinha and N. Das) in the rank of Executive Engineer irrespective of their seniority in the cadre of Assistant Engineers.

5. C.W.J.C. 623/70 is the petition on behalf of Prayag Prasad Sahu (who is Respondent No. 23 in C.W.J.C. 1787/69). In this writ application he has prayed for quashing of Annexure 1 being the gradation list of permanent Assistant Engineers of Public Health Engineering Department as it stood on 1.11.1969. The claim of the petitioner is that his seniority as Assistant Engineer must be reckoned from the date of his initial appointment (11.5.1955) and that he should be placed above N. Das in the aforesaid gradation list.

6. A number of counter-affidavits and replies thereto have been filed in the writ application but in the view that I am taking it would not be necessary to refer to them in detail.

7. A chart giving the necessary particulars in relation to the appointment and confirmation in the rank of Assistant Engineer and Executive Engineer is given below.

TABLE

It may be stated that by Annexure 25 all the aforesaid persons except R.R.B.P. Sinha have been promoted as Superintending Engineer on ad hoc basis for six months. We were informed that they are still continuing as Superintending Engineer,

8. It would be seen that so far as promotion to the post of Executive Engineer is concerned, Lala Umesh Chandra Prasad Sinha claims promotion in 1962-64. K.P. Sinha claims promotion from 19.12.1963. The other promotions have taken place in the year 1967 (except for N.P.R. Mittal who was on deputation and continues as such). So far as confirmation as Executive Engineer is concerned, the three petitioners and all the other respondents except one, have been confirmed on 19.7.1978. It is only R.R.B.P. Sinha, who has been confirmed on 20.2.1973 with effect from 1.10.1968, Thus, it will be seen that except for R.R.B.P. Sinha whose case stands on a different footing, it is the date of substantive appointment as Executive Engineer which is determinative of seniority in the grade of Executive Engineer.

9. When an officer is promoted to a higher rank it is the seniority in that rank which is ordinarily material. Only when two or more officers are promoted at the same time they carry their seniority in . the lower grade. In the circumstances of the present case it would be necessary to examine the position even in the rank of Assistant Engineers.

10. It is not in dispute that the petitioners in the four writ cases were appointed earlier than the