NARAYANA PAI, CJ. ( 1 ) THE petitioners and the contesting respondents in these cases originally entered service in the Revenue Department at" Belgaum District as temporary clerks. 96 persons were enlisted, i. e. , recruited as permanent clerks (subject no doubt to confirmation) in the year 1951. Names of 71 such persons were included in a list dated 26th June 1961; 24 more (including one S. R. Poojari) were included in a list dated 12th February 1952 and one in a list dated 18th March 1953. ( 2 ) S. R. POOJARI mentioned above filed Writ Petition 929 of 1962 complaining that his confirmation has been unduly delayed while others who, according to him, had an inferior right for such confirmation, had been confirmed. His contentions were examined and the case disposed of by an order dated 14th August 1967 which is reported at page 407 of 1967 (2) Mysore Law Journal. ( 3 ) ON 13th December 1967, the Deputy Commissioner of Belgaum district published a Provisional Gradation List of various persons including the parties to these Writ Petitions, in the preamble to which it was found stated that in preparing the list, the order of this Court in Poojari'a case has been borne in mind and the directions contained therein given effect to. ( 4 ) THE said list is impugned, firstly, as involving a departure from the directions contained in the said order of this Court as also on other grounds, by all the petitioners except the petitioners in Writ Petitions 4105 and 4106 of 1969. The general plea of the State Government in support of the list is that the order of this Court in Poojari's Writ Petition has been strictly obeyed and that in preparing the list, regard has been had for certain resolutions of the Government of the erstwhile State of Bombay governing the determination of seniority of persons employed in the revenue Department. The petitioners in Writ Petitions 4105 and 4106 of 1969 support the stand taken by the State Government and particularly the contention that the decision in Poojari's case did not, to any extent deal with, or settle the question of, seniority; in the event of this Court taking the view, agreeing with the petitioners in other Writ Petitions that the last order has some bearing on the question of seniority, the said two petitioners say that they are entitled to an order recalling the previous order and for a review thereof because they were not parties to the previous Writ Petition. ( 5 ) THE first question for consideration in these Writ Petitions therefore is whether the order of this Court in Poojari's Writ Petition 929 of 1962 determined the question of seniority. ( 6 ) IT is seen from the order that the complaint of the petitioner poojari therein which the Court considered was- "that the petitioner's confirmation was unduly postponed and that others who had an inferior right to confirmation were preferred to the exclusion of the petitioner who had a higher right. " (See page 408 of the Report ). ( 7 ) THE further discussion contained in the order also shows that much depended upon the determination of the date on which Poojari and others had passed a test called the Sub-service test, the passing of which was compulsory for the purpose of securing confirmation. Poojari's contention was that he had passed the test even before the date of enlistment and that therefore the date of passing the test for the purpose of determining the eligibility for confirmation should be a date quite anterior to the date of his enlistment itself. This claim was rejected as extravagant. ( 8 ) THE Court next considered a certain opinion expressed by the deputy Commissioner and ultimately came to two conclusions- (1) that though the names of 96 persons enlisted are given in three different lists or lists bearing three different dates, the date of enlistment of all of them was, in the circumstances no other than the date of the earliest of the lists, viz. , 26th June 1951; and (2) that in the case of persons who had passed the Sub-service test before the said date, the date of enlistment should itself be deemed to be the date on which they passed the sub-service test. , 26th June 1951; and (2) that in the case of persons who had passed the Sub-service test before the said date, the date of enlistment should itself be deemed to be the date on which they passed the sub-service test. ( 9 ) HAVING stated these two conclusions, the Court proceeded to make the following observations at the concluding part of the judgment, which has given rise to the arguments of interpretation before us:-"some argument was expended before us as to what would be the position in regard to seniority if the petitioner's enlistment is regarded as having been made on June 26, 1951. We do not think that we should embark upon a discussion on that matter in these proceedings. What we should, however, explain is that on the view that we take, all the 96 persons should be regarded as having been enlisted permanently on June 26, 1951, each one of them taking the rank assigned to him in the list which was prepared on June 26, 1951, of which the second list will be regarded as a continuation. Those who are in the first list will have the ranks assigned to them in that list and those who are in the second list will take ranks below them and in the order in which their names are assigned. The person who was appointed on March 18, 1952, shall take his position below the last person in the second list which was prepared on February 12, 1952. Such of these persons who had already passed the sub-service departmental examination shall be deemed to have passed that examination on June 26, 1951, which is the date of their enlistment, and their confirmation in the post in which they were permanently appointed will be made on that basis. We make a direction that the determination of the seniority and the arrangement of the confirmation, if necessary, will be made on the formula evolved in this order. In consequence, the petitioner will be entitled to all the consequential benefits arising out of this order and we make the further direction that the determination directed by this order shall be made within four months from this date. In consequence, the petitioner will be entitled to all the consequential benefits arising out of this order and we make the further direction that the determination directed by this order shall be made within four months from this date. " ( 10 ) THE opening sentences in this extract leave no room for doubt that the Court had no idea whatever of determining the question of relative seniority although much argument was expended over it. If that is borne in mind, the observations following thereafter cannot, with any logic, be related to any idea of seniority. One of the elements in determining seniority, viz. . the date of confirmation, depended admittedly upon the date of passing a certain test. All that the Court did was to close a controversy as to the date on which Poojari and others similarly situated must be deemed to have passed the test; or in other words, how the passing of a test even before the date of enlistment should be valued from the point of view of determining the eligibility for confirmation. The other question of fixing or determining the exact date of enlistment was also either an incidental question or a necessary corollary. Hence, these are the only two matters which had been definitely decided by the Court. ( 11 ) TWO circumstances, however, are depended upon in support of the argument that seniority was in fact settled or a certain formula for the determination of seniority formulated and laid down by the Court. The first of them is the statement that the persons in the three lists should bo placed or retained at the ranks respectively occupied by them in the three lists, the earlier of the lists taking precedence over the latter list, and in the final direction the Court stated that the determination of seniority must be made on the formula evolved in the order. ( 12 ) THE second circumstance, viz. , the direction for the determination of seniority itself indicates that seniority has still to be determined by somebody else in the light of the order, which means that the order itself did not settle the seniority but that a certain point having a bearing upon the determination of seniority has been settled by the Court which is described as the formula evolved in the order. If it is remembered that confirmation is one of the elements in determining seniority, that the eligibility for confirmation depended upon the passing of a certain test and the date of passing the same and that these two matters were in controversy in the said case, what is described as the formula evolved in the order can be no other than the decision that in the case of persons who had passed the test before their actual enlistment, the date of enlistment should be the deemed date of passing the test. ( 13 ) IN this view, the earlier reference to the retention of ranks in the consolidated list could not be regarded as the determination of seniority which was expressly left to be determined in the light of the decision. If that itself is to be regarded as a decision on the question of seniority, no further direction for the determination of seniority could have been logically given in the order. ( 14 ) WE are therefore clearly of the opinion that the decision in pooiari's case did not amount to anv final decision on the question of seniority but that the only matters finally concluded by the said order were :- (1) that the persons enlisted or shown as enlisted in the lists bearing three different dates must be regarded as having been enlisted on the date of the earliest of the lists, viz. , 26th June 1951 ; and (2) that in the case of persons who had passed the sub-service test before the date of enlistment, the date of enlistment should be regarded as the date of passing the sub-service test. ( 15 ) IN this view, no question of recalling the last order or reviewing the same will arise. ( 16 ) AS the list itself is a Provisional List and parties have the right of making representations, we do not express any opinion on the merits of the gradation made in the Provisional List all the Writ Petitions are dismissed. --- *** --- .