S.B.Sinha, J.

1. The petitioner by way of this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India prays for issuance of an appropriate writ for quashing an order dated 18-6-1990, as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ application whereby his prayer to rank him in the seniority list of the Forester has been finally rejected.

2. The basic facts of the case are admitted. The petitioner and the respondent Nos. 11 to 13 were appointed in the posts of Forest Guard on 5-5-1973, 24-4-1974, 24-1-1974, and 5-9-1974 respectively.

3. According to the petitioner, the posts of Forester and Forest Guard belong to one cadre being that of the subordinate forest service and are governed by Clause 3.19 of the Bihar Forest Manual, which read as follows: The Subordinate Forest Service comprises of:

(i) Forest Rangers,

(ii) Foresters,

(iii) Forest Guards.

(iv) Other subordinates, namely, Surveyor, Amin, Marking Officer, Felling Observer, Depot Officer, Coupe Overseer, Mines Muharrir, Naka Guard etc.

4. It is further the case of the petitioner that appointment to the post of Forester is governed by Clause 3.21 thereof.

The petitioner contended that the authorities of the State of Bihar in violation of all norms and in an arbitrary manner sent respondent No. 11 for obtaining training in the Department Guards Training School on 27-4-1978 (Annexure-8) and relieved him for that purpose on 22-5-1978 Annexure- 3/A) ; relieved respondent No. 12 in the year 1980 and respondent No. 13 in the year 1981 whereas, he was relieved for undergoing, the said training in 1984 and was posted as a Forester on 2-4-1985.

5. Admittedly, the respondent No. 11 chained Honours in Forest Guards training on 5-10-1978 ; the respondent No. 12 stood first with Honours in Forest Guards training on 6-10-1980 and the respondent No. 13 stood First with Honours in Forest Guards Training on 26-7-1981.

6. According to the petitioner, he being [senior to Respondent Nos. 11 and 13 ought to have given an opportunity to undergo the forest guards training prior to the said respondents.

The petitioner has further contended that he had made representations before the authorities concened on 8-6-1980 (Annexure-11) ; 7-1-1981 (Annexure-11/A) and 19-11-1981 (Annexure-11/B), to the effect that he should have been sent for undergoing training in Forest Guards training prior to the said respondents but no order was passed therein.

7. On 14-5-1982, the petitioner was relieved for undergoing Foresters training, but on 18-5-1982, as would appear from Annexure-9, he was sent back in the ground that he had not been promoted to the post of Forester. The petitioner ultimately was relieved for training in the Departmental Guards Training School in the year 1984-85 and stood first with honours in the examination held in the said training School.

8. The respondent No. 11 joined as a Forester in the year 1988 but on a representation made by him, by an order dated 16-3-1989 he was given seniority with retrospective effect from 5-10-1978.

9. The respondent No. 12 joined as a Forester on 13-7-1982 and in the year 1989 he was given seniority with retrospective effect from 6-10-1980. Similarly, the respondent No. 13 joined as a Forester on 21-5-1982 and he was given seniority with retrospective effect from 6-7-1981. The petitioner, as noticed hereinbefore, was posted as Forester on or about 2-4-1985.

10. Mr. R.N. Das, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner raised various contentions in support of this application. According to the learned Counsel, as the posts of Forester and Forest Guard belong to the same cadre, the seniority of employees in the said cadre should relate back from the date of his joining the said cadre.

The learned Counsel, in this connection, has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Bindeskwari Ram V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors. -- .

11. It was next contended by the learned Counsel that as the petitioner was posted in different Divisions, he