JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the Education Department of the State of Rajasthan on September 6, 1951, in the glade of Rs. 70-4-90, which was later on revised to Rs. 70-4-90-4-100 and is commonly known as "the inter Grade". The petitioner had passed the Intermediate Examination in the year 1949 and C.T. Examination in the year 1951 and as such at the time of his appointment as an Assistant Teacher he was a trained Intermediate. However, the petitioner was promoted from the Inter grade to the trained Inter grade with effect from July 1, 1957. During this interval the petitioner had passed the B.A Examination in the year 1956 and it is not in dispute that he was drawing the salary of Rs. 90/- per month in the Inter Grade on March 1, 1956. Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted to the untrained Graduate Grade temporarily with effect from July 1, 1959 and substantively from July 1, 1961 after he was selected for the post of a Graduate teacher by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. The petitioner was also given the trained graduate grade by the order dated September 13, 1961 with effect from July 1, 1961. One more fact requires to be mentioned here, namely that the petitioner was recommended by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission for promotion to the post of a graduate grade teacher on 29-4-1961. The untrained graduate grade & the trained graduate grade were subsequently merged and all graduate teachers came to be known as second grade teachers', while the inter grade teachers were called `third grade teachers'. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was promoted as an officiating first grade teacher, also known as senior teacher with effect from August 10, 1961 and that he is continuing to work thereafter as a senior teacher in a Government Higher Secondary School since then. 2. It is not necessary for me to consider in detail the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this writ petition, because two of the three reliefs claimed by the petitioner have ceased to subsist since the filing of the writ petition. 2. It is not necessary for me to consider in detail the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this writ petition, because two of the three reliefs claimed by the petitioner have ceased to subsist since the filing of the writ petition. The first relief claimed in the writ petition is that the non-petitioners may be directed to fix the seniority, if the petitioner in the State wide interlaced seniority list of second grade teachers and the third relief claimed is that the non-petitioners may be directed to prepare & publish the interlaced seniority list as per Government notification dated September 9, 1965. Learned Deputy Government Advocate has submitted that a final interlaced statewide seniority list of second grade teachers, namely the graduate teachers, both trained as well as untrained, was duly prepared and has been published by the Director of Primary and Secondary Education, Rajasthan, vide his notification dated June 2, 1975. It is also asserted by the non-petitioners that the said seniority list has been prepared on the basis of the criterion laid down in the Government notification dated September 9, 1965, and further that the name of the petitioner is also included in the aforesaid final seniority list at serial number 2076. Thus the grievance of the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid two reliefs claimed by him have been amply fulfilled and does not exist any longer. The only grievance which now remains on this score is that according to the petitioner he should have been assigned seniority in the aforesaid final seniority list of second grade teachers on the basis that he should have been promoted in the category of second grade teachers with effect from July 2, 1956, while in the said seniority list, which has been published vide notification dated June 2, 1975, the petitioner has been assigned seniority which reference to the date of recommendation of his name by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission for appointment as a second grade teacher. The stand taken by the non-petitioners is that the placement of the petitioner has been made in the final seniority list in accordance with the provisions of clause 11 of the notification dated September 9, 1965, while according to the petitioner he should have been assigned seniority keeping in view the provisions of clause 12 of the aforesaid notification. The stand taken by the non-petitioners is that the placement of the petitioner has been made in the final seniority list in accordance with the provisions of clause 11 of the notification dated September 9, 1965, while according to the petitioner he should have been assigned seniority keeping in view the provisions of clause 12 of the aforesaid notification. It is not punishable to entertain this contention of the petitioner in this petition in as much as it has not been disclosed in the writ petition as to who were, the persons who had allegedly supers ceded the petitioner and over whom be claims seniority with reference to clause 12 of the not dated September 9, 1965. Moreover, any such person has not been made a party to the notification to the present in writ petition and the question of the seniority of the petitioner qua specified persons cannot be considered or determined by this Court in the absence of such persons. The petitioner has not challenged the criterion determined for fixation of seniority as both the parties are agreed in the present case that the seniority of II grads teachers should have been fixed according to the principals, laid down in the notification issued by the State Government in this respect on September 9, 1965. The non-petitioners assert that the aforesaid notification dated September 9, 1965 has been adhered to while preparing the final seniority list, which has been published vide notification dated June 2, 1975. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid seniority list has been published during the pendency of the present writ petition and he could not, therefore, challenge his placement in the said seniority list in the writ petition. If the petitioner feels aggrieved on account of the position assigned to him in the said seniority list vis-a-vis some persons, then he may challenge the seniority assigned to such persons by means of a separate writ petition. 3. If the petitioner feels aggrieved on account of the position assigned to him in the said seniority list vis-a-vis some persons, then he may challenge the seniority assigned to such persons by means of a separate writ petition. 3. However, it may be mentioned here that so far as the circulars dated September 29, 1961, April 26, 1962 and July 7, 1964 are concerned, the petitioner cannot get any benefit so far as the assignment of seniority in the category of second grade teachers is concerned, because those circulars related merely to the assignment of seniority in the category of third grade teachers and prescribed eligibility for promotion to higher grades from third grade or inter grade teachers and the aforesaid circulars are not at all relevant for the purpose of determining the inter se seniority of second grade teachers. There is no basis to hold that the petitioner is entitled to get seniority amongst the second grade teachers with effect from July 2, 1956. However, if he can get any benefit from the provisions of clause 12 of the notification dated September 9, 1965 in respect of the assignment of seniority amongst set order grade teachers, in the final seniority list dated June 2, 1975, the petitioner would be free to agitate that matter by a subsequent writ petition. 4. As regards the second relief claimed by the petitioner in the writ petition that the non-petitioners may be directed to determine the vacancies for each year and take steps for filling in the vacancies in the posts of Head Masters of Secondary Schools, the case of the non petitioners is that the vacancies have now been duly determined and that steps have also been taken for filling in the vacancies in the posts of Head Masters of Secondary Schools, both by direct recruitment as well as by promotion. Learned Deputy Govt. Advocate has submitted that the procedure prescribed for filling in the vacancies by promotion in the Rajasthan Educational Service Rules, 1970 could not be followed during earlier years on account of the fact that there was no final seniority list of second grade teachers available before June 2, 1975, and it is only thereafter that the proceedings for filling in substantively the vacancies in the posts of Head Masters of Secondary Schools by promotion could be undertaken. Under the aforesaid 1970 Rules, the posts of Head Masters in the Secondary Schools have to be filled in 50 percent by direct recruitment and 50 per cent by promotion from amongst teachers in the Second grade and above, from the general cadre of Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service. Thus, the teachers, both in the first grade as well as in the second grade are eligible for appointment to the posts of Head Masters of Secondary Schools, included in the Rajasthan Educational Service. There is no doubt that before a final seniority list of second grade teachers could be prepared, substantive appointments on the posts of Head Masters of Secondary Schools by way of promotion could not be made. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the provisions of the Rajasthan Service (Recruitment by Promotion against Vacancies of Earlier Years) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1972 rules" and contended that the vacancies in the posts of Head Masters of Secondary Schools should have been determined under the 1972 Rules with respect to each year against the promotion quota and then appointments should have been made against those vacancies from earlier years, in accordance with the provisions of the 1972 Rules. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is however, untenable in view of the fret that the 1972 Rules are only applicable where the method of recruitment provided for specified quota of direct recruitment as well as promotion & appointment by direct recruitment against vacancies of direct recruitment quota had already taken place but the vacancies to be filled in by promotion had not been determined and persons have been deprived of appointment by promotion and of appropriate seniority on account of the fact that the promotion quota remained unfilled during the earlier years. The provisions of rule 2 of the 1972 Rules have been notified by the amendment introduced there it, with retrospective effect vide notification dated November 5, 1973 published in the Rajasthan Gazette (Extra ordinary) dated November 27, 1973, whereby it has been made quite clear that the provisions of Rule 2 could be made applicable only in those cases where the Service Rules provide for recruitment both by direct recruitment and promotion and where promotion quota of earlier years could be filled up in the absence of the recommendation by the Departmental Promotion Committee, but the vacancies against direct recruitment quota during these years had been filled in with the result that persons already, in service were deprived of substantive appointments by promotion and of appropriate seniority from the day or the year when vacancies of promotion quota should have become available. According to the non petitioners, there were no appointments made either by direct recruitment or by promotion to the posts of Head Masters of Secondary Schools during all these years but temporary appointments on ad hoc or officiating basis were made from time to time and it way only in the year 1975 that the procedure for direct recruitment through the agency of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission was set into motion. Thus the 1972 Rules have no application in the present situation and the petitioner cannot get any benefit therefrom, as appointments, neither by direct recruitment nor by promotion had taken place during the years earlier to 1972 or even thereafter upto the year 1975, on the posts of Head Masters in the Rajasthan Educational Service. As persons were not appointed even by direct recruitment to the posts of Head Masters of Secondary Schools, during the earlier years, prior to 1975, the petitioner shall not suffer any loss on account of the non-determination of vacancies every year and no hardship would be caused to him such as loss of seniority on account of lack of appointments by way of promotion. Moreover, as it appears now that the petitioner's name stands at serial number 2076 in the seniority of second grade teacher, the petitioner had no immediate chances of even being considered for promotion what to say or being promoted to the post of Head Master of a Second try School, according to the Rajasthan to Educational Service Rules, 1970 and as such he can have no grievance on account of the failure on the concerned authorities to determine the number of vacancies year after year during the earlier years. 6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.Writ dismissed. *******