JUDGMENT 1. - This petition is directed to question the seniority of the respondents K.N Ghei, M.L. Kachhawa and T.V. George, all of whom are employees under the Director of Technical Education (ITI Wing), Rajasthan. In order to understand the controversy some salient features have to be stated shortly. The petitioner was appointed as a Draughtsm an Civil Instructor (later on known as Crafts Instructor on 1.9.57 He was confirmed on this post w e.f. 9.5.60. It appears that on 27-9-63, he was appointed as Supervisor Instructor (later redesignated as Senior Instructor). In 1965, the posts were taken out of the purview of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission and a Selection Committee was constituted ' which held a suitability test The result of this test as that Mr. M.L. Kachhawa was placed at No. 1, T.V. George at No. 11, the petitioner at No. 15 and Shri K.N. Gheiat No. 17. The petitioner was confirmed as a Supervisor (Senior Instructor on 19.2.1971. The Government published a seniority list on 1-10-1971 in which both M.L. Kachhawa and T.V George were shown senior to the petitioner but Mr. Ghei was shown junior to the petitioner. However, a note was added that upon confirmation Shri K.N. Ghei will rank senior to Kachhawala. It is, therefore, clear that the claim of the petitioner with regard to seniority over Shri M.L. Kachhawala and T.V. George has little basis and was not rightly pressed before me. It further appears that thereaftar the petitioner was also promoted as Foreman (Group Instructor) some time before January, 1973. 2. The controversy with regard to the seniority of Shri K.N. Ghei has arisen in the following circumstances : Shri K.N. Ghei was selected by the Public Service Commission as a Supervisor Instructor (Senior Instructor) and was appointed as such on 12-2-1960. Later on, it was discovered that his selection was invalid as he did not fulfil the requisite qualification. The Government revoked his appointment on July 28, 1960, but he was at the same time appointed as temporary Supervisor until a suitable candidate selected by the Commission was available. Shri Ghei filed a writ petition No. 510/1965 in this Court against the order of revocation. During the writ petition the Government withdrew is earlier order on December 27, 1966. The writ petition was dismissed on July 26, 1967 as withdraw. Shri Ghei filed a writ petition No. 510/1965 in this Court against the order of revocation. During the writ petition the Government withdrew is earlier order on December 27, 1966. The writ petition was dismissed on July 26, 1967 as withdraw. Shri Ghei, was not even then given past benefits and he filed another writ petition No. 411 of 1967. It was decided on January 21, 1972. In this petition, the High Court directed that Shri Ghei shall be treated as substantive Supervisor Instructor and his case shall be considered for all service benefits including promotion to higher post or posts as and when they fell vacant after July 28, 1960. It was further clarified that nothing in the order shall affect adversely the case of those employees who were not parties to the second writ petition. 3. It appears that post of the Foreman (Group Instructor) was again placed in the purview of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission by a Gazette Notification on dated 4-8-1972. The Government however appointed a selection committee and that selection committee interviewed. Ghei and selected him, as a Foreman (Group Instructor) on 29-12-1972. In the year 1975, the Rajasthan Technical Training Subordinate Service Rules 1975, came into force. According to Rule 6 (iii) a committee screened all the persons in respect of the post which they were holding on 1-1-1973. The petitioner was also screened as a Foreman (Group Instructor). Shri M.L. Kachhawa and Shri T.V. George were again placed above the petitioner. The selection of Shri Ghei was made with retrospective effect and he was confirmed as Foreman (Group Instructor) w.e.f. 20-7-1970. Thereafter Shri Ghei was appointed as officiating Superintendent on 2nd July 1974. In 1976 a Departmental Promotion Committee was convened on 1-5-1976, which considered all the eligible persons including the petitioner for the post of the Superintendent. The petitioner was not considered fit for appointment on the post. Shri Ghei however, continues to hold the officiating appointment and has filed an appeal with the Rajasthan Civil Service Appellate Tribunal for his confirmation. 4. The contention of the petition claiming seniority over Shri Ghei is based upon two grounds. Firstly, that he not being a party to the previous writ petition, filed by Ghei, the High Court's order dated January 21, 1972, cannot adversely affect his case and he is entitled to challenge the initial appointment and seniority of Shri Ghei. 4. The contention of the petition claiming seniority over Shri Ghei is based upon two grounds. Firstly, that he not being a party to the previous writ petition, filed by Ghei, the High Court's order dated January 21, 1972, cannot adversely affect his case and he is entitled to challenge the initial appointment and seniority of Shri Ghei. Secondly that when the post was placed within the purview of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, then, Shri Ghei could not have been selected as Group Instructor on 29-12-1972 by a Selection Committee. 5. I have considered over these contentions. It is true that as per directions of the High Court, the petitioner has a right to agitate if his case is adversely affected by the aforesaid directions of the High Court. But at the same time the initial appointment of Shri Ghei as a substantive Supervisor. Instructor cannot now be challenged. If the petitioner were allowed to challenge the initial appointment of Shri Ghei, then the orders given in the previous two writs shall be nullified. He therefore, cannot be permitted to challenge the initial appointment of Shri Ghei. As regards the second contention the Selection Committee was convened in pursuance of the directions of the High Court in order to give the respondent all service benefits including promotion to higher post or posts as and when they fell vacant after 28th July, 1960. Thus, his case had to be treated as outside the purview of the Public Service Commission at the relevant time in the past and had to be considered only by similar Selection Committee. It cannot, therefore, be said that the reconvening of the Selection Committee and the selection of the petitioner by it was in any way illegal. If there two contentions do not prevail, then, there is nothing on the basis of which Shri Dave can be held to be senior to the respondent No. 3 Shri Ghei. 6. I, therefore, find no force in this petition and it is hereby rejected. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.Writ rejected. *******