NARAYANA PAI, CJ. ( 1 ) THE petitioner M. Savitri, the 2nd respondent K. C. Jayarama Reddy and the 3rd respondent Mohammed Ibrahim Sheriff were appointed Lecturers in Botany; the appointment was by selection out of applicants for the same. The selection was made by the Mysore Public Service Commission at the instance of the State Government. ( 2 ) IT is stated in the counter-affidavit on behalf of the State Government, which we have no reason to disbelieve,that the order in which the names of the above three persons were arranged in the list sent by the public Service Commission was the 2nd respondent, 3rd respondent and the petitioner. The order of appointment, a copy whereof is produced as ex. A by the petitioner, also arranges the names of the said three persons in the said ordersl. No. 11 K. C. Jayarama Reddy, Sl. No. 12 Mohammed ibrahim Sheriff and Sl. No. 13 Smt. M. Savitri. ( 3 ) THE complaint of the petitioner is that it was incumbent on the government as the appointing authority to determine the inter se seniority among the three persons under Rule 5 (b) of the Seniority Rules, and she therefore prays that the Government having failed to do so, this Court should issue a direction to the Government to perform its duty and fix the relative seniority and then proceed to make promotions in accordance therewith. ( 4 ) THE relevant portion of Rule 5 of the Seniority Rules reads:"5. The decision regarding the seniority of direct recruits to a service or to a class of post shall be made by the appointing authority at the time of their first appointment in one of the modes mentioned below : (a) When the recruitment is made on the result of a competitive examination, the order of seniority will be in order of merit, or (b) When the recruitment is made by selection, the order of Seniority will be determined by the order in which the candidates are arranged in order of merit by the appointing authority in consultation with the Public Service Commission or other authority making the selection. (C) * * * * ". ( 5 ) MR. (C) * * * * ". ( 5 ) MR. RAMA Jois, learned Counsel for the petitioner, states that there is a distinct difference between the language employed in clause (a) and clause (b), on the strength of which he contends that whereas in the case of recruitment on the result by competitive examination the order of merit itself determines the order of seniority, in the case of recruitment by selection the order of seniority has to be determined by the appointing authority. He further contends that selection is something different from the determination of seniority, the former being the function of the selecting authority like the Public Service Commission and the latter being the duty or power of the appointing authority. ( 6 ) WHAT the argument overlooks is that clause (b) of Rule 5 compela the appointing authority to determine seniority in the order of merit; the appointing authority is not free to determine seniority otherwise than in the order of merit. The selection is also on merit and when the selecting authority arranges the names of selected persons in the order of merit, the appointing anthority is bound to follow the same order by the first part of the rule; to make a selection in the order of merit itself constitutes the consultation required by the clause. ( 7 ) THE use of the word 'consultation' has its source in the provisions of the Constitution itself which say that recruitment is one of the makers in which the State Government, the appointing authority, should consult the Public Service Commission. ( 8 ) SUCH being the position, the arranging of the names of respondents 2 and 3 and the petitioner in the said order in the order of appointment is a determination of seniority in obedience to clause (b) in the order of merit as indicated by the selecting authority, the Public Service commission. The Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. --- *** --- .