JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner in this case is a Graduate in Agriculture and was initially appointed as a Food Assistant in the Agriculture Department of the Government of Rajasthan on October 17, 1956 in a temporary capacity in the pay-scale of Rs. 100 - 200. He was transferred to the post of Agriculture Extension Officer on March 27, 1957 and his appointment to the last-mentioned post was approved by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission and thereupon the term of his appointment on the post of Agriculture Extension Officer was extended by the order dated April 27, 1959. The petitioner was confirmed on the post of Agriculture Extension Officer by the order dated September 1, 1966 with effect from October 28, 1963. But later on, by a subsequent order dated April 22, 1971, the confirmation of the petitioner on the aforesaid post was made effective from April 7, 1960. 2. The petitioner has challenged the position assigned to him in the combined interlaced seniority list of Subordinate Agriculture Service (Extension Wing) dated April 22, 1971. The petitioner has been placed at No. 161 in the aforesaid interlaced combined seniority list and the respondents Nos. 3 to 60 have been placed above him. According to the submission of the petitioner, the said respondents Nos. 3 to 60 could not have been assigned places higher to the petitioner in the aforesaid combined interlaced seniority list. Only three contentions have been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner before me in support of the aforesaid submission, although the writ petition is a very lengthy one and several grounds appear to have been taken therein. 3. The first contention of learned counsel for the petitioner was that the seniority assigned to the persons employed as Agriculture Extension Officers, Agriculture Assistants, Food Assistants, Farm Assistants and Field Assistants, in accordance with the decision arrived at under section 115 of the State Reorganisation Act, 1956 was final and as the petitioner was shown at serial No. 75 in the said list, his position in the seniority list could not have been disturbed subsequently. According to the petitioner, the said seniority list, issued under section 115(5) of the States Reorganisation Act on October 24, 1959, was prepared on the criteria of continuous length of service and the argument is that the seniority of the petitioner in the Subordinate Agriculture Service could not be revised subsequently. According to the petitioner, the said seniority list, issued under section 115(5) of the States Reorganisation Act on October 24, 1959, was prepared on the criteria of continuous length of service and the argument is that the seniority of the petitioner in the Subordinate Agriculture Service could not be revised subsequently. This contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is not tenable in view of the fact that the subsequent seniority list issued on April 22,1971 has not the effect of altering the inter-se position assigned to the persons included in the seniority list dated October 24, 1959 including the petitioner. But the position assigned to the petitioner in the earlier seniority list of 1959 had to be modified because of the fact that the names of persons working on other Subordinate Agriculture Service posts had also to be brought into the last mentioned seniority list, while interlacing and preparing a combined seniority list for all Subordinate Agriculture Service (Extension Wing) personnel, which besides the aforesaid persons also included persons who were employed in Plant Protection, Soil Conservation, Marketing Organisation and other branches of the extension wing of the aforesaid service. There can be no disagreement with the submission of the learned counsel that the inter se seniority of persons who were included in the list prepared under section 115 (5) of the States Reorganisation Act could not have been disturbed but "there is no allegation in the present case that the position of any of the persons, who were included in the aforesaid seniority list of 1959, was disturbed or altered to the disadvantage of the petitioner, while preparing the new seniority list issued on April 22, 1971. If other persons, who were not included in the list prepared under section 115 (5) of States Reorganisation Act had also to be included, while preparing a combined seniority list of persons holding subordinate service posts in the Agriculture Department and for that purpose interlacing of persons holding various posts In the same cadre or cadres having the same grade became necessary, it cannot be said that the sanctity of the list prepared under section 115 (5) of the Act was in any manner violated. It may be pointed out that the petitioner had entered the service of the State only on October 17, 1956, a few days before the States Reorganisation Act came into force on November 1, 1956 and he was then employed only as a temporary Food Assistant and he was not holding any substantive appointment on the date of integration of Ajmer and Rajasthan Services on November 1, 1956, when the States Reorganisation Act came into force. When a combined seniority list was prepared of the Rajasthan Subordinate Agriculture Service (Extension Wing), the petitioner was assigned a proper position in accordance with the criteria laid down in the relevant rules or in the absence of rules according to the criteria specified by the State Government by a notification. Thus, the petitioner has been unable to show as to what prejudice has been caused to him by the publication of the interlaced seniority list dated April 22, 1971 and as to how his seniority was affected to his prejudice by the interlacing of and the preparation of a combined seniority list of all Subordinate Agriculture Service personnel. 4. The second contention of learned counsel was that the Director of Agriculture, while publishing a provisional seniority list, had determined the criteria for fixation of seniority vide notification dated July 13, 1970 but while actually preparing the final seniority list, which was published vide notification dated April 22, 1971, the criteria was modified and that the Director of Agriculture was not entitled to amend or alter the criteria which was published on July 13, 1970. In my view, this submission of the learned counsel is only of academic value so far as the present case is concerned and as such the same does not require determination in this case. A bare perusal of Schedule II annexed to the writ petition showing the relative position assigned to the petitioner and the respondents in the various seniority lists makes it amply clear that the petitioner was assigned a position below all the respondents Nos. 3 to 60 in the seniority list issued by notification dated July 13, 1970 and the same situation also emerged as a result of the publication of the final seniority list issued on April 22, 1971. If the petitioner was junior to the respondents Nos. 3 to 60 in the seniority list issued by notification dated July 13, 1970 and the same situation also emerged as a result of the publication of the final seniority list issued on April 22, 1971. If the petitioner was junior to the respondents Nos. 3 to 60, even according to the provisional seniority list published by the notification dated July 13, 1970 and he remained junior to the said respondents even according to to the final seniority list dated April 22, 1971, it is difficult to understand as to what grievance the petitioner could have in respect of the assignment of seniority to him qua the respondents Nos. 3 to 60 by the final seniority list dated April 22, 1971. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out that any of the respondents Nos. 3 to 60 were shown as junior to the petitioner in the provisional seniority list dated July 13, 1970 and he has been made senior to the petitioner in the subsequent final seniority list dated April 22, 1971. The situation appears to be that all the respondents Nos. 3 to 60 were senior to the petitioner according to the 1970 seniority list and that they still continue to be senior to the petitioner even according to the 1971 seniority list and as such, there is no change in the comparative positions assigned to the petitioner and the respondents in the aforesaid two seniority lists. Thus, even if the criteria laid down in the notification dated July 13, 1970 was slightly modified while issuing the final seniority list dated April 22, 1971 as the relative position of the petitioner and the respondents remained the same, the petitioner cannot have any grievance merely on the ground of alleged modification in the criteria published earlier for determination of seniority. 5. The next submission of the learned counsel was that according to the criteria notified by the Director of Agriculture alongwith the provisional seniority list dated July 13, 1970, all the respondents who were holding posts in grades lower to that of the petitioner, should have been assigned lower positions in the seniority list as compared to the petitioner and reliance has been placed on the provisions of clause 2(b) contained in the notification dated July 13, 1970 in support of this contention. There is no doubt that the aforesaid clause 2(b) of the criteria, published by the notification dated July 13, 1970 provides that persons recruited after selection by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission on a lower pay scale should rank lower in seniority to the persons recruited to higher grades after such selection. But the explanation given immediately under clause 2(b) referred to above, explains the fallacy of the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It has been mentioned therein that "such persons recruited specifically to the pay scale 175-300 or 150-350 when the pay scale of other subordinate Agriculture Service posts was 110-200 or 110-225 have been ranked senior to those in the lower pay scale up to 1-6-58 after which the lower pay scale 110-225 was also revised to 150-350." Those of the respondents, who have been shown as holding the posts of Agriculture Assistants or Marketing Assistants, Food Assistants, Plant Protection Supervisors, Marketing Inspectors and the like, have been placed in the grade 110-225 in Schedule I appended to the writ petition and it is on that basis that the argument has been advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that all such respondents who were in the grade of 110-225 should have been placed lower down in the seniority list than the petitioner, who was drawing his salary in the grade of 150-350. But, as mentioned in the explanation contained in the notification dated July 13, 1970 and which has been quoted above, the pay scale of all the aforesaid posts was revised from 110-225 to 150-350 with effect from June 1, 1958. This also appears to be the correct position from the statement of pay scales annexed to the notification dated July 13, 1970. As the petitioner was selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission for the post of Agriculture Extension Officer on April 7, 1959 that is, after June 1, 1958 and so at the time of his appointment all the respondents were holding posts in the grade of 150-350 and as they were selected by the Public Service Commission earlier to the petitioner for their respective posts, the respondents were rightly placed as senior to the petitioner according to the criteria which has been laid down by the notification dated July 13, 1970. The subsequent notification dated April 22, 1971 provides the criteria for determination of seniority in respect of persons who came to be employed after selection by the Public Service Commission after November 1, 1956 as the date of selection by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission on the posts in the same or equated grades and as the respondents were selected by the Public Service Commission earlier to the petitioner and the grades of the posts held by them were revised and equated to Ks 150-350 before the petitioner came to be selected by the Commission then the petitioner cannot claim seniority over the respondents Nos. 3 to 60, even according to the last mentioned criteria. 6. In this view of the matter, I am not prepared to hold that any injustice has been done to the petitioner in the assignment of position to him in the final seniority list dated April 22, 1971. 7. No other point was argued before me. 8. The writ petition has no merit and is, consequently, dismissed. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.Petition dismissed. *******