Bisheshwar Prasad Singh, J.

1. The petitioner herein has prayed for quashing the office order dated 11-11-1986 (Annexure-1) issued by the Bihar School Examination Board (respondent No. 2 herein) where by respondent No. 5, Tej Narain Tiwari, has been absorbed in the cadre of Section Officer after treating his service to be continuous with effect from 16th August, 1969, his date of first appointment. The petitioner has challenged the above order on the ground that by giving benefit of continous service with effect from 16th August, 1969, even though respondent No. 5 was actually appointed by direct recruitment on 20th March, 1972, the Board has sought to affect the seniority of the petitioner and others, who were promoted as Section Officers earlier than the appointment of respondent No. 5 as Section Officer by directed recruitment. The instant writ petition has been filed because despite the earlier order of this Court holding that Annexure-1 did not confer seniority on respondent No. 5, the respondent Board has been treating respondent No. 5 as senior to the petitioner by permitting him to officiate against a higher post from time to time and lastly by order dated 29th November, 1989 (Annexure-13) respondent No. 5 has been allowed to officiate against the post of Joint Secretary in the Board, obviously treating him as senior. Such officiating appointment entitles respondent No. 5 to special allowance.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed and joined the Board as Senior Assistant, Grade II on 15-9-1960. In due course he was promoted to the post of Senior Assistant, Grade I, in April 1965. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as a Section Officer on 27-8-1970 vide Annexure-2. The respondent-Board created an ex-cadre post of Special Officer (Bhandar) in the year 1969 to look after the elementary and higher secondary examinations. Respondent No. 5 was appointed as a Special Officer by order dated 16-8-1969. The letter of appointment of respondent No. 5 has been annexed as Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit, from which it appears that respondent No. 5 was initially appointed temporarily for a period not exceeding six months in the scale of Rs. 30 )-2Q-400-EB-20-500. It is not in dispute that the term of respondent No. 5 was extended from time to time. According to the petitioner, since the elementary and higher secondary examination were abolished in the year 1971, the Board had no need for Special Officer (Bhandar) to look after such examinations and it decided to abolish the said post with effect from 1st April, 1971. Accordingly, a letter dated 10th March, 1971 (Annex-ure-3) was issued, whereby respondent No. 5 was informed that his services were terminated with effect from 1st April, 1971. Respondent No. 5 was aggrieved by the order terminating his service and he, therefore, filed a civil suit in which an interin order was made on 29th March, 1971, restraining the respondent-Board from implementing the order dated 10th March, 1971. According to the petitioner, it was on account of this order of the Court that Board decided to extend the services of resdondent No. 5 by order dated 5th April, 1971. Since a dispute was pending before the civil court in which an order of injunction had been passed, the Boasd considered the matter and as will appear from Annexure-C filed by the respondents, the Board took the following decisions :

(1) The post of Special Officer (Bhandar) shall be abolished.

(2) Respondent No. 5 shall be appointed as a Section Officer with starting salary of the scale and he shall be paid by way of reducible personal pay the difference in the salary of Special Officer and that of Section Officer. Such an offer was to be made to respondent No. 5 if he agreed to withdraw the suit pending in the Court.

In view of this decision, respondent No, 5 withdrew the suit and was appointed by direct recruitment in the scale of Rs. 230-450. He was givan the initial starting salary of Rs. 280 and Rs. 7