The competition for seniority between direct recruits and promotees to the Bihar Police Service is the central point hotly convassed at the bar in these two applications. They have been heard together as the parties fill common character. The petitioners in each of them are direct recruits to the service (commonly known as Dy. S.P.). Respondent nos. 4 to 57 are promotees to it. The cause for the action arose out of issuance of Annexures 4 and 4/1 and, therefore, the petitions originally were for quashing them. While these applications were pending before this Court Annexures 6 and 6/1 were issued as a follow up of Annexures 4 and 4/1. Thus Annexures 4 and 4/1, 6 and 6/1, are under attack by the petitioners. According to the petitioners the State Government had no power or jurisdiction to resort to the device adopted in Annexures 4 and 4/1 and thus Annexures 6/1 had no legal sanctity. Respondents 4 to 57 (hereinafter called "the contesting respondents") supported the action of the State Government and even endeavoured to sustain the validity of those Annexures. As stated above the application originally were for quashing Annexures 4 and 4/1 but while they were pending the State Government came out with a fresh gradation list (Annexure 6/1). The petitioners then filed an amendment application with the prayer to quash Annexures 6 and 6/1 and to add the Joint Secretary, Home Police Department, Government of Bihar as respondent no. 3A. That application, filed on 14.3.78 was listed for orders before Hon'ble the Chief Justice and P.S. Sahay, J. It was ordered by that Bench that the amendment petition be put up for consideration before the Bench hearing the two writ applications. The amendment application, therefore, was placed before us along with the applications. We have heard counsel for the parties in regard to the amendment application. In order to effectually dispose of the matter in controversy between the parties it is just and expedient that the amendment petition should be allowed. Without quashing Annexure 6/1 merely quashing of Annexures 4 and 4/1 would be a futile exercise. The amendment applications therefore, are allowed the main applications will be treated as amended as prayed. We had indicated our views in this regard as the hearing of the applications proceeded. The amendment petitions are being for many disposed of now by this order and judgment.

2. In order to appreciate the facts it is necessary to derive a little into the history of the Bihar Police Service. I should, however, like to observe that our difficulty has increased manifold because the State Government has not chosen to disclose all relevant materials in these two applications. It is not necessary to investigate into the reasons for it but our handicap remains all the same. This judgment, therefore, must be taken to be based upon the facts adduced before us. It is not necessary to transport ourselves into the dim past. Suffice it to say that on the separation of Bihar and Orissa in 1936 the common Bihar and Orissa Police Service cadre was split into two. The strength of Dy. S. Ps. for Bihar on 19.8.1936 was 28. Subsequently the cadre went on swelling from time to time and now stands at 219 permanent posts and 55 temporary posts. The process of expansion of the cadre has been that temporary posts were created in the first Instance and subsequently they were made permanent. The position in regard to temporary appointments to the service is rather confusing. Whereas it was stated on behalf of the State (respondents 1 to 3A) that no officer has been holding a temporary posting. The civil list of 1948 shows different picture. It shows that there were 47 substantive Dy. S.P. in 1948 and 86 temporary Dy. S.P. It includes Ram Bahadur Singh ‘respondent no.4 at serial.

65. This picture, however, changes. The civil list of 1963 does not contain any temporary Dy. S.P. but mentions 76 persons as officiating by Dy. S.P. Rambahadur Singh (respondent no.