ORDER G.B. Pattanaik, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. An interim order of a learned Single judge of the Patna High Court is under challenge in this appeal-application. The Appellants-applicants had been selected on the basis of 30th Combined Competitive Examination. They were appointed into different schemes which were not of permanent nature and they had obtained some orders directing regularisation of their services, from the Court by filing writ petition. Some observations have been made by the High Court in contempt proceedings therein indicating that they should be treated to be regular appointees of the 30th Examination. When the Government of Bihar issued a notification dated 13th January, 1999. the officers of the regular cadre of Bihar Education Service Cadre-II who had been appointed pursuant to the Combined Competitive Examination of 31st Examination, assailed the legality of the said notification dated 13th January, 1999 which is now pending consideration before the High Court.
3. In the aforesaid writ petition an interim order has been passed which is the subject matter of grievance of the present Appellants-applicants. By the impugned interim order the High Court has restrained the State of Bihar from giving any retrospective seniority to those officers who though were not absorbed in regular cadre notwithstanding they being successful on the 30th Competitive Examination but are being regularised by the notification of 13th January, 1999.
4. Mr. Dwivedi, learned senior Counsel appearing for the Appellants - Applicants, contends that in view of the orders passed in the contempt proceedings, there would be no justification to deny the seniority to those of the officers who are being regularised by the notification date.13th January 1999 in view of principles already decided by the Division Bench of the High Court in the contempt proceedings. Mr. Mishra, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that the entire writ petition would become infructuous and the question of seniority of those persons should depend upon the ultimate conclusion as to whether the notification of 13th June, 1999 is valid or not, which is the subject matter of consideration in the pending writ petition. He further contends that even if the services of these people would be regularised yet in the cadre in question they may not be held to be senior over those who were in the original cadre pursuant to their being successful in the 31st Examination. We do not think it appropriate to express any opinion at this stage since the writ petition is pending and all questions raised would be decided therein. We would only modify the interim order of the High Court to the extent that all those officers who were successful in the 30th Competitive Examination and have already been absorbed in the regular cadre prior to 13th June, 1999 they must be treated to be senior to those who had come in the cadre pursuant to 31st Competitive Examination. So, far as others are concerned, the status quo as on today be maintained until the writ petition is disposed of finally one way or the other. It would be open for all parties to raise their respective contentions before the High Court where the writ petition is pending. Whatever we have said in this order will not in any way bind the High Court in the final decision. The High Court is requested to dispose of the writ petition at an early date preferably within one year from today.
5. These appeals stand disposed of accordingly.