Tapen Sen, J.

1. By order dated 30.1.2002, as contained at Annexure 5 to the writ petition the Regional Director, Animal Husbandry, while recording that one Dr. Kedar Prasad Pandey was going to superannuate on 31.1.2002, directed that the petitioner, who was the senior-most officer and was functioning as Sub-Divisional Animal Husbandry Officer, Latehar, would function as District Animal Husbandry Officer in addition to his own duties till further orders. Subsequently, however, by order dated 31.1.2002, the Secretary to the Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries, passed a contrary order and directed the said superannuating officer to hand over the charge to the Respondent No. 5 (Kaiadhar Prasad) instead to the petitioner.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he being the senior to the Respondent No. 5 and his seniority having already been recorded vide Annexure 5, should not have been ignored and officers who are retiring/superannuating should, therefore, have been directed to hand over charge to him and not to the Respondent No. 5.

3. In support of his contention that he is senior to the Respondent No. 5, the petitioner has referred to a Seniority list which is contained at Annexure 8 showing his position at Serial No. 888, while that of the Respondent No. 5 Sat Serial No. 1610.

4. According to the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4, the petitioner is no doubt at serial Number 888 amongst the Animal Husbandry Services Class 2 Cadre and according to his seniority he had been transferred from his basic post to the 1st stage promotional post as Sub Divisional Animal Husbandry Officer while the Respondent No. 5 has also been transferred from the post of Block Animal Husbandry Officer, Chandil, to the post of a Key Village Officer, Daltongunjon 18-10-2001. According to them the Respondent No. 5 has been authorised to work as District Animal Husbandry Officer but it is not a case of promotion to the higher post. On the contrary it is simply a direction to work as District Animal Husbandry Officer in his own pay-scale as a "stop gap arrangement".

5. According to these respondents, the Respondent No. 5 is also a Scheduled tribe candidate and in order to provide proper representation of a Schedule Tribe officer in the District level posts he has been directed to work as a stop-gap-arrangement. According to them, the Respondent No. 5 is the senior-most scheduled tribe candidate in the State of Jharkhand. The respondents have also stated at paragraph 12 that there is no victimization because the case of seniority will be considered when the matter of promotion will be taken up by the Department.

6. The plea taken by the respondents to the effect that it is a stop gap arrangements has been countered by the petitioner in the rejoinder to the counter-affidavit wherein he has stated that merely because the Respondent No. 5 happens to be a scheduled candidate it does not mean that a higher post should have been given to him without regular promotion and that too as a stop-gap-arrangement.

7. Taking into consideration the pleadings of the parties, this Court feels that the action of the State in making a stop-gap-arrangement from amongst the junior persons and totally ignoring the case of seniors amounts to creating frustration amongst the seniors forcing them to enter into unnecessary litigations. Such stop-gap-arrangements cannot be allowed to continue for a long period of time and it must see its logical conclusion and determination of all facts and taking into consideration the promotion of various officers in the seniority list. Stop-gap-arrangements should not be allowed to continue for long in the manner that has been done in the instant case. Consequently, this writ petition is disposed off by giving liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before the concerned authority within a period of two weeks. The said authority in his turn shall issue notice to the petitioner and also to the Respondent Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8, and after hearing each one of them and after giving them all reasonable opportunity of hearing pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. 8. With the aforementioned observations this writ petition stands disposed off.