JUDGMENT K.N. Goyal, J. - These two Writ Petitions are directed against judgment of the U. P. Public Services Tribunal whereby opposite party No. 3 in writ petition No. 2055 of 1978 who is Opp. party No. 1 in writ petition No. 1596 of 1978 (hereafter referred to as the opposite party) has been held to be senior to the petitioners of writ petition No. 2055 of 1978 who will hereafter be referred to as the petitioners. The other writ petition, namely 1596 of 1978 has been filed by the State of U. P. and Director of Agriculture. The said opposite party has already retired during the pendency of these writ petitions but the writ petitions survive because his emoluments and retirement benefits would be affected by the decision in these cases. 2. The opposite party was admittedly appointed as an Agronomist, a post in Section 'C' of class I of the U.P. Agricultural Service, earlier than the aforesaid petitioners. His appointment was by way of promotion made with the approval of the Public Service Commission. These petitioners were appointed by the direct recruitment through the commission, subsequently to the posts of officerincharge in class I Section 'C' The Government confirmed the said petitioners earlier than the opposite party because posts of Officerincharge were treated as forming a separate group from the post of Agronomist, although both the posts carried the same pay scale and grade. The contention of the petitioners and the State Government is that the practice was to make groupwise confirmation and as opposite party has never held post of Officerincharge he could not be confirmed as such. The Tribunal has rejected these contentions, having found that the service rules make no mention of a different group in Section 'C' or for groupwise seniority. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. On behalf of the petitioners and the State Government it has again been asserted that the opp. party had never been appointed as officerincharge and, as such, could not claim seniority of that post. The question of seniority on the post of Officerincharge does not arise because the rules do not speak of the post of Officerincharge, So far as these posts were concerned, they were created within the cadre by a special order of the Government alongwith the decision that the posts would be filled by direct recruitment through Commission. The question of seniority on the post of Officerincharge does not arise because the rules do not speak of the post of Officerincharge, So far as these posts were concerned, they were created within the cadre by a special order of the Government alongwith the decision that the posts would be filled by direct recruitment through Commission. It is true that the opposite party was also a candidate for' the post of Officerincharge but according to him, as the had already been, in the meantime, approved by the Commission for the post of Agronomist he had ceased to have any interest in appointment as officerincharge. Howsoever that may be the fact remains that the rules do not provide for groupwise seniority. All the posts in Clase I in Section 'C' must, therefore, be treated as equal as they all carried the same payscale. It is purely fortuitous that for administrative convenience separate groups were created by executive order but such administrative arrangement cannot affect the interse seniority of officers holding posts in the same pay scale and the same grade. A person duly appointed earlier to the grade must be treated as senior to those appointed later. 5. It was also contended by the learned Standing Counsel that the opposite party was not qualified for the post of Agronomist. The Tribunal has noted this argument and found that the Public Service Commission had agreed to relax the requirement of the length of experience required for the post and as the Government, acting on the recommendation of the Commission, had already appointed the opposite party to the post, it was no longer open to the Government to contend that the opposite party was not qualified. 6. Reliance has also been placed on certain amendments in the rules which came into effect only in July, 1978. These rules cannot affect the controversy because the Tribunal's decision is of March, 1978 and the rules are expressly prospective and not retrospective. 7. The apprehension of the petitioner is that their seniority visavis other officers who were similarly situated as the opposite party herein may be affected by this judgment. These rules cannot affect the controversy because the Tribunal's decision is of March, 1978 and the rules are expressly prospective and not retrospective. 7. The apprehension of the petitioner is that their seniority visavis other officers who were similarly situated as the opposite party herein may be affected by this judgment. It may be made clear that nothing is being observed herein about the implications of the new rules which came into force in July, 1978 and therefore nothing herein contained shall have any effect on any controversy as between the petitioners of this writ petition visavis other persons who are still in service. 8. I, thus, find no merit in these writ petitions which are hereby dismissed with cost. (Petitions dismissed)