JUDGMENT B. L. Loomba, J. - In this writ petition under Article 22.6 of the Constitution of India, Bhagwat Swarup has claimed three reliefs firstly that writ of certiorari may issued to quash paragraph 3 of the Government Order dated 29-3-1982 contained in Annexure 1, secondly a writ of certiorari to quash the order of grant of selection grade to opposite parties 3 to 5 contained in Annexures 4 and 5 and lastly a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties 1 and 2 to prepare a seniority list within a specified period and to allow the petitioner the selection grade on the basis of his seniority with effect from 1-7-1979. 2. According to factual averments contained in the writ petition, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Journalist on 19-9-1962 which post was designated as that of Information Officer on 10-2-1972. The petitioner was confirmed on the post of Information Officer with effect from 10-8-1977 vide Office Order dated 12-9-1978. Annexure 2 to the petition. The petitioner was promoted on the post of Feature Writer, vide Office Order dated 15-9-1978 in the scale of Rs. 500-1000/-. Annexure 3 to the petition. The petitioner has raised the grievance that opposite-parties 3 to 5 even, though junior to the petitioner, on the post of Information Officer were sanctioned selection grade of Rs. 550-1200. with effect from 4-1-1980 in so far as opposite-parties 3 and 4 are concerned and is with effect from 15-7-1980 in so far as opposite-party No. 5 is concerned and that the petitioner was deprived of grant of selection grade. It is alleged that the criteria for selection grade of Rs. 550-1200 was seniority. The other grievance raised by the petitioner is that inter see seniority of the petitioner qua opposite-parties 3 to 5 has not been determined and that the petitioner submitted a representation dated 11-10-1984 to opposite-party No. 2 seeking determination of his seniority, cancellation of the order granting selection grade to opposite-parties Nos. 3 to 5 and grant of selection grade to the petitioner. Annexure 7, and that this was followed by another representation to opposite-parties 1 and 2, copy Annexure 8. 3. Writ Petition has been contested by opposite parties 1 and 2, being State of U.P. and Director of Information respectively, as also by opposite parties Nos. 3 to 5 and grant of selection grade to the petitioner. Annexure 7, and that this was followed by another representation to opposite-parties 1 and 2, copy Annexure 8. 3. Writ Petition has been contested by opposite parties 1 and 2, being State of U.P. and Director of Information respectively, as also by opposite parties Nos. 3 to 5 who are also Information Officers in the Department of Information and were granted selection grade as aforesaid. According to the counter affidavits filed by the opposite-parties, correct and complete service details of the petitioner and that of opposite parties 3 to 5 have not been furnished in the writ petition. This submission appears correct. As such the factual position is to be gathered by us from the affidavits exchanged between the parties. 4. The petitioner's initial appointment in the Information Department was on the post of Journalist with effect from 19-9-1962 in the scale of Rs. 220-550 which scale was lower to the scale of the post of Information Officer : the post of Journalist was non-gazetted post while the post of Information Officer is a gazetted post. The post of Journalist was designated as Information Officer with effect from 10-2-1972. Selection for appointment to the post of Information Officer was made through Public Service Commission in the year 1977 by way of direct recruitment. Opposite-parties 3 to 5 along with others were selected to the post of Information Officer. The date of appointment of opposite party No. 3 was 1-9-1977 while the date of appointment of opposite parties 4 and 5 was 17-8-1977. Opposite-party No. 3 was confirmed on the post of Information Officer on 1-9-1979, opposite party No. 4 was confirmed on 17-8-1979 and opposite-party No. 5 on 23-8-1979. According to the order dated 12-9-1978. Annexure 2, the petitioner along with two other Officer's was placed on probation and confirmed on the post of Information Officer and in doing so their satisfactory continuous service was taken into account. According to this order the petitioner was placed on probation on 10-8-1977 and was also confirmed with effect from the same date. It was, however, mentioned in this order that the seniority of these three officers vis-a-vis other Information Officers shall be determined later. 5. As is mentioned above, validity of the G.O. dated 29-3-1982 has been challenged by the petitioner. It was, however, mentioned in this order that the seniority of these three officers vis-a-vis other Information Officers shall be determined later. 5. As is mentioned above, validity of the G.O. dated 29-3-1982 has been challenged by the petitioner. According to this G.O. the strength of the post of Information Officer in the Information Department was 32. The selection grade of Rs. 1200-1720 was granted with effect from 1-7-1979 equal to 20% of the posts on the condition of the official concerned having already put in 10 years service on the relevant post. In paragraph 3 it was explained that Government servants who were already getting selection grade between 1-7-1979 and 29-9-1981 would be entitled to the revised selection grade with effect from 20-11-1981 even though they had not put in ten years' service on the relevant post. A condition was, however, added that they will not be entitled to the benefit of annual increment in the revised selection grade for so long as ten years service is not completed. Applicability of this G.O. was confined only to two posts, namely, that of Information Officer and Stenographer in the Directorate of Information and Public Relations. 6. Another Government Order dated 14-2-1983 was issued in regard to the grant of selection grade to Government servants. Copy of this G.O. is contained in Anneuxre 6 to the writ petition. This G.O. has general application to all the departments of the Government and appears to have been issued as a classificatory order with a view to explain the position and remove any doubt or misgivings on the question of grant of selection grade of the various posts under the Government. The main thing explained in this G.O. was that for purposes of computing ten years service, only regular service (Niyamit Sewa) shall be taken into account and service put in by a Government servant in a short term vacancy or against a leave vacancy or in ad hoc capacity shall not be considered to be regular service. The main thing explained in this G.O. was that for purposes of computing ten years service, only regular service (Niyamit Sewa) shall be taken into account and service put in by a Government servant in a short term vacancy or against a leave vacancy or in ad hoc capacity shall not be considered to be regular service. Another important classification contained in this G.O. was that the eligibility for grant of selection grade would be on the basis of seniority in the relevant cadre and an official junior in the seniority list shall not be eligible for grant of selection grade even though he may have put in ten years or more service on the post while the official senior to him who had not put in ten years or mere service on the post shall be eligible and the question of grant of selection grade to a junior official would arise only if his senior in the seniority list has been considered for the grant of selection grade. 7. The challenge to the validity of G.O. dated 29-3-1982 Annexure 1 has been made on the grounds that the grant of selection grade to the Information Officers who had put in less than ten years service or the post of Information Officer is discriminatory. The second ground of attack is that the grant of revised selection grade to those officers who had been granted old selection grade with effect from 1-7-1979 up to September 29, 1981 without regard to criteria of promotion is seniority is arbitrary, unjust and discriminatory inasmuch as grant of revised selection grade gave benefit of Rs. 700/- per month to the Information Officers (who were in the old selection grade) while depriving other Information Officers like the petitioner who had not been given the old selection grade. 8. In regard to the third relief of claim of writ of mandamus commanding opposite-parties 1 and 2 to prepare the seniority list within a specified period, the ground raised is that the delay in preparation of the seniority list is for ulterior motives and to serve the vested interests and that the action of opposite-parties 1 and 2 in granting selection grade to opposite-parties 3 to 5 without first determining inter se seniority of all the Information Officers is arbitrary, discriminatory and amounting to abuse of authority. 9. 9. Director of Information opposite-party No. 2 has filed a counter affidavit dated 15-1-1986 according to which seniority list of the Information Officers had already been finalised and circulated, vide office order dated 4-10-1985. Copy of this order has been filed as Annexure A-l to this counter-affidavit. According to this seniority list Shamshad Ahmad opposite-party No. 4 ranks first in the seniority list while opposite party No. 5 Husain Ali Irfani is shown at serial No. 2. Petitioner's name has been shown at serial No. 5 in the seniority list and in between Husain Ali Irfani and the petitioner there are two more officers, namely, Janardan Rao and Shah Nawaz Quraishi who are not arrayed as parties to this writ petition but are shown senior to the petitioner. In this way, the petitioner has been shown junior to opposite-party 4 and 5. 10. The validity of the seniority list contained in Annexure A-l to the counter affidavit of opposite-party No. 2, dated 15-1-1986 has not been challenged in this writ petition. True, that this order of determination of seniority has been issued during the pendency of the writ petition, yet it was open to the petitioner to have challenged its validity by way of amendment in the writ petition, In any case, the basis of determination of seniority is not the subject-matter of challenge in this writ petition. 11. The basis of determination of seniority contained in the said Annexure A-l as per the counter affidavit of opposite party No. 2 is the merit determined by the U.P. Public Service Commission. A copy of the letter of Under Secretary, Public Service Commission, dated 20-10-1979 has been filed as Annexure A-2 to this counter affidavit. The subject-matter of this letter is the merit of the candidates selected through the Public Service Commission on the post of Information Officer. The letter proceeds to state that the Public Service Commission has considered the question of determination of inter see seniority of the candidates selected for the post of Information Officer and determines the seniority as provided in the letter. According to the seniority list as determined by the Commission the petitioner has been placed at serial No. 8 while opposite-party No. 3 Kaushal Kumar Rai has been placed at serial No. 1, Shamshed Ahmad at No. 2 and Husain Ali Irfani at No. 5. According to the seniority list as determined by the Commission the petitioner has been placed at serial No. 8 while opposite-party No. 3 Kaushal Kumar Rai has been placed at serial No. 1, Shamshed Ahmad at No. 2 and Husain Ali Irfani at No. 5. In between there are two names that of Darya Newas Joshi and Ram Kant Uniyal (it appears both have since retired). In between Husain Ali Irfani and the petitioner Shah Newaz Quraishi has been shown at serial No. 7. The name of the petitioner also appears at serial No 9. It appears he was selected on the post of Information Officer (Hindi) as also for the post of Information Officer (English). It was provided in this order that option may be given to Bhagwat Swarup for appointment against any of these two posts. It was, however, added that he will rank junior to Shah Newaz Quraishi (at serial No. 7) and senior to Inder Dutt Shukla shown at serial no. 10. 12. Another counter affidavit was filed by opposite-party No. 2 on 28-5-1986 providing further details in the matter of grant of selection grade to opposite-parties Nos. 3 to 5 and explaining denial of this benefit to the petitioners. In paragraph 4 of this counter affidavit it was mentioned that the State Government in the Information Department sanctioned vide letter dated 20-10-1983 revised selection grade effective from 1-8-1972 or from the date of the actual creation of the post whichever is later. Through this G.O. the selection grade of Rs. 500-1000 was sanctioned for three posts of Information Officer. Copy of this G.O. has been filed as Annexure A-3 to this counter-affidavit. In paragraph 5 it was stated that the petitioner had made representation for sanction of selection grade by his letters dated 4-1-1980 and 28-1-1980. These representations were considered in details and the Information Department was legally advised that unless there are specific provisions in Service Rules or in any other Rules for grant of selection grade on particular post, the selection grade has to be given according to the general policy dictated by the Personnel Department of the State Government on the basis of seniority subject to the rejection of unfit and that the petitioner did not come in the eligibility list and for that reason he was not given selection grade and was informed accordingly. According to paragraph 7, the selection grade on the post of Information Officers was granted on the basis of seniority determined by the Public Service Commission as per the letter of the Public Service Commission dated 30-10-1979 already discussed. According to paragraph 9 of this affidavit, the petitioner was selected for the post of Information Officer by the Public Service Commission on regular basis in the year 1977 and he was appointed on that basis vide order dated 10-8-1977 copy of which was filed as Annexure A-7 to this counter affidavit. According to this order, the petitioner was appointed as Information Officer (Hindi) in the scale of Rs. 450-950 and was placed on two years probation. 13. Paragraphs 12 and 13 of this counter-affidavit relate to the grant of time bound pay scale to Government employees in accordance with the G.O. dated 6-11-1985 issued by the Finance Department, copy of this G.O. has been filed as Annexure A-9 to this counter affidavit providing that selection grade on personal basis should be sanctioned with effect from 1-7-1985 to those employees who have completed ten years satisfactory service on their post and are regularly appointed. It has been asserted in paragraph 13 that the petitioner's case for sanction of selection grade on personal basis was duly considered but in view of adverse entries awarded against him for the years 1982-83 and 1983-84., he was not found suitable for grant of selection grade. It was added in paragraph 14 that the petitioner had made representations to the State Government against the adverse entries given to him for the years 1982-83 and 1983-84 but the same were rejected. It was added that the petitioner filed a claim petition before U.P. Public Services Tribunal for expunction of adverse entries and also for sanction of selection grade. A written statement has been filed on behalf of the State Government in this claim petition on 15-4-1986. 14. The petitioner has filed a supplementary rejoinder affidavit dated 10-7-1986 in reply to the counter affidavit of Director, Information dated 20-5-1986. Dealing with paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit only thing mentioned is that this paragraph is misleading and is denied. A written statement has been filed on behalf of the State Government in this claim petition on 15-4-1986. 14. The petitioner has filed a supplementary rejoinder affidavit dated 10-7-1986 in reply to the counter affidavit of Director, Information dated 20-5-1986. Dealing with paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit only thing mentioned is that this paragraph is misleading and is denied. It has not been expressly controverted that the petitioner was selected for the post of Information Officer by the Public Service Commission on regular basis in the year 1977 and that he was regularly appointed on the basis of option given by him to the post of Information Officer (Hindi) vide order dated 10-8-1977 copy Annexure A-7 to the counter-affidavit. In this situation, it has to be accepted that the petitioner was appointed as Information Officer on the basis of recommendation of the Public Service Commission under order dated 10-8-1977. In this order, there is a mention of the appointment being made on the basis of the recommendations of the Public Service Commission. It has also been mentioned that the appointment was being made on two years' probation. 15. Shamshad Ahmad opposite-party No. 4 filed counter affidavit dated 17-10-1985. Paragraphs 2(a) to (f) are important. It was alleged therein that the petitioner was appointed as Journalist (a non-gazetted post) in the scale of Rs. 220-550 with effect from 19-8-1962 and this post was designated as of Information Officer with effect from 10-2-1972, that the appointment to the petitioner to the post of Information Officer till 1977 was ad hoc and the post being within the purview of the Public Service Commission, reference was made to the Commission and in the year 1977 a selection was made by the Commission for the various categories of the posts of Information Officers both from the Departmental quota candidates and through direct recruitment from open field for which qualified departmental candidates was also made eligible for consideration. The Commission selected seven departmental candidates as Information Officer in the departmental quota while the petitioner was not selected as a departmental candidate by way of promotion. The Commission selected ten candidates against the direct quota and the list of selected candidates was reproduced according to which the petitioner was placed at 8th position and opposite-parties 3 to 5 were ranking higher merit. The petitioner filed a rejoinder affidavit dated 28-10-1985. The Commission selected ten candidates against the direct quota and the list of selected candidates was reproduced according to which the petitioner was placed at 8th position and opposite-parties 3 to 5 were ranking higher merit. The petitioner filed a rejoinder affidavit dated 28-10-1985. In reply to paragraph 2 (d), it was submitted that in the year 1973 the Public Service Commission made advertisement for 15 posts of Information Officers but selected only 12 candidates of whom seven were from Information Department. The selection was not held on quota basis. Further, it was not asserted by the petitioner that he was one of the seven candidates thus selected. There was no denial that the petitioner applied for direct recruitment and was selected. The only thing mentioned is that the Commission did not circulate any merit list of the candidates selected for the post of Information Officers and that the list of candidates approved by the Commission as circulated by opposite-party No. 2 vide Office memo dated July 11, 1985 indicates only nine officers. The petitioner asserted that the petitioner and opposite-parties 3 to 5 do not belong to one and the same batch and that the Public Service Commission approved the appointment and continuance of the petitioner while in the case of opposite-parties it was a direct selection. No merit list of the selected candidates was ever published. 16. It has to be noticed that while the assertion made in the affidavit of Shamshad Ahmad opposite-party No. 4 are specific and positive, the denial by the petitioner is not direct and specified and the basis of the statement made by the petitioner in the rejoinder affidavit is the non-publication of merit list by the Commission. The assertion in the affidavit by Shamshad Ahmad is fully supported by the merit list and the seniority determined by the Public Service Commission as contained in the Commission's letter dated 30-10-1979, copy Annexure A-4 to the counter affidavit dated 20-5-1986. 17. What appears thus is that the petitioner applied for direct selection to the post of Information Officer by the Public Service Commission and was selected along with opposite parties 3 to 5. 17. What appears thus is that the petitioner applied for direct selection to the post of Information Officer by the Public Service Commission and was selected along with opposite parties 3 to 5. As per merit list prepared by the Public Service Commission and the seniority inter see as determined by the Commission, the petitioner ranks junior to opposite-parties 3 to 5 and this is obviously, the only basis on which opposite-parties 3 to 5 were granted selection grade as against three available posts while the petitioner was not considered for and appointed on, the selection grade post. 18. The petitioner's regular appointment on the post of Information Officer was made by order dated 10-8-1977 under which he was placed on two years probation. The petitioner has, however, filed copy of the order dated 12-9-1978 according to which he was confirmed from the same date on which he was placed on probation. Copy of this order is Annexure 2 to the writ petition. The genuineness of this document has not been expressly denied in any of the counter affidavits filed on behalf of opposite-parties. It has as such to be taken that even though the petitioner was appointed on two years probation on 10-8-1977, his matter was subsequently considered and keeping in view his satisfactory service rendered on the post of Information Officer though on ad hoc capacity, he was confirmed with effect from the date of appointment i. e. 10-8-1977. This date (10-8-1977) being prior to the date of confirmation of the opposite-parties 3 to 5, the petitioner claimed seniority as against opposite-parties 3 to 5 on the basis of this confirmation order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on G. P. Dowal v. Chief Secretary, U.P. Government, 1984 L and Ind. Cases 1304). The petitioners in Dowal's case had been appointed on the post of Khandsari Inspector in the year 1960. At that time that post was not within the purview of the Public Service Commission and the petitioners asserted that they had been regularly recruited to the posts which though temporary were sanctioned to continue indefinitely. Their grievance was that those appointed subsequently through the Public Service Commission were given higher seniority over the petitioner. The claim for seniority was raised on the basis of their continuous officiation followed by approval by the Public Service Commission. Their grievance was that those appointed subsequently through the Public Service Commission were given higher seniority over the petitioner. The claim for seniority was raised on the basis of their continuous officiation followed by approval by the Public Service Commission. It was found as a fact that the recruitment of the petitioners was on the basis of Departmental Competitive Examination followed by interview and they were approved by the Public Service Commission for regular appointment in the year 1963. The question under decision was whether on account of exigencies of service, the recruitment to a post within the purview of the Public Service Commission is made by the appointing authority but at a later date the Public Service Commission puts its seal of approval to such an appointee, whether the continuous and uninterrupted service by such appointees prior to the approval by the Public Service Commission can and should be taken into computation while determining seniority based on the principle of length of continuous officiation. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court decided that since there was no binding rule of seniority and when stop-gap appointment of Khandsari Inspectors had been subsequently confirmed by the Public Service Commission, their past services should not be ignored in determining seniority. It was held that where officiating appointment is followed by confirmation unless a contrary rule is shown, the services rendered as officiating appointment cannot be ignored for reckoning length of continuous officiation for determining the place in the seniority list. 19. As was mentioned above, the question of validity or otherwise of the seniority determined under office memo dated 4-10-1985, copy Annexure A-l to the counter affidavit of the Director, Information Department opposite party No. 2, dated 15-1-1985 is not the subject-matter of this writ petition. There is no relief claimed to have this seniority list quashed. No factual averments have been made in the writ petition to lay a basis for determining the rival claims for seniority. The only relief claimed is that a writ of mandamus be issued commanding opposite-parties 1 and 2 to prepare a seniority list within a specified period. There is no relief claimed to have this seniority list quashed. No factual averments have been made in the writ petition to lay a basis for determining the rival claims for seniority. The only relief claimed is that a writ of mandamus be issued commanding opposite-parties 1 and 2 to prepare a seniority list within a specified period. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard is that the validity or otherwise of the seniority list dated 4-10-1985 is a question of law and it can validly be considered and decided even in the absence of a relief to have the seniority list quashed. Upon a careful consideration, we are not inclined to accept this submission because this is not merely a matter of absence of claim of relief but the necessary factual averments are lacking to enable us to properly and fully appreciate the basis of rival claims by the petitioner and opposite-parties 3 to 5 and others. It is the undisputed position the the Service Rules have since been framed. A copy of the Service Rule has not been furnished on the record. Whether or not there were Government orders covering the question of determination of seniority has also not been made clear. In the absence of factual assertions it is difficult for us to assume the provisions of the Service Rules or any Government orders having relevancy to the subject. 20. In conclusion it is to be stated on the basis of the material on record that it is difficult to accept the petitioner's claim of seniority as against opposite-parties 3 to 5. The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Journalist on 19-9-1962. This post was designated as that of Information Officer with effect from 10-8-1972. There is no assertion that the petitioner's appointment on the re-designated post of Information Officer in February, 1972 was on the basis of any competitive examination or any other basis of regular selection as was the factual position in Dowal's case (supra) The petitioner's appointment on the post of Information Officer was obviously, on ad hoc basis. At best, he was a Departmental candidate and his name appears to have been sent for approval by the Public Service Commission as is asserted in the counter-affidavit of Shamshad Ahmad, in paragraphs 2 (d) and 1 e) thereof. At best, he was a Departmental candidate and his name appears to have been sent for approval by the Public Service Commission as is asserted in the counter-affidavit of Shamshad Ahmad, in paragraphs 2 (d) and 1 e) thereof. The Commission selected seven departmental candidates as Information Officers and the petitioner was not selected as a Departmental candidate. On the other hand, the petitioner applied as a direct candidate and he was selected along with opposite-parties Nos 3. to 5 and the merit at the selection was duly determined and specified by the Public Service Commission. In this situation, the Dowd's case is distinguishable on facts. Had the petitioner been approved by the Public Service Commission as a departmental candidate, his position would have been different. But the petitioner's appointment is now relatable to his selection as a direct candidate and in that capacity the merit at the selection would, obviously, be not only relevant but reasonable and correct basis of determination of seniority vis-a-vis the other candidates selected along with the petitioner. It has already been mentioned that there is no express denial of the factual assertion contained in paragraph 2 of the counter affidavit of Shamshad Ahmad opposite-party No. 4. 21. In the back-ground of factual position as analysed above, the action of the opposite-parties 1 and 2 in allowing selection grade to opposite-parties 3 to 5 against three available posts cannot, in any way, be said to be arbitrary, discriminatory and illegal. The petitioner had, in fact, submitted to it. Selection grade was initially sanctioned in favour of opposite-parties 3 to 5 by orders dated January 4,1980 and 15-7.1980, Annexures 4 and 5 to the writ petition. No challenge was directed against these letters. As is mentioned in paragraph 5 of the counter-affidavit of the Director of Information dated May 20, 1986 the petitioner made representations vide letters dated 4-1-1980 and 28-1-1980. There representations were fully considered but rejected. The revised selection grade was sanctioned under G.O. dated 29-3-1982, Annexure-1 to this writ petition. The petitioner even then kept quiet for over two years and filed this writ petition only on December 20, 1984. If the grant of initial selection grade was valid, there was no question of any invalidity being attached to the Government order dated 29-3-1982, Annexure 1 to the writ petition. The petitioner even then kept quiet for over two years and filed this writ petition only on December 20, 1984. If the grant of initial selection grade was valid, there was no question of any invalidity being attached to the Government order dated 29-3-1982, Annexure 1 to the writ petition. The provision contained in paragraph 3 of this G.O. cannot be said to be arbitrary and discriminatory. 22. The petitioner thereafter claimed selection grade under G.O. dated 6-11-1985 on the basis of having already put in 15 years of service on the post of Information Officer. When he was denied personal selection grade, he filed Claim Petition No. 351/F/III/1985 before the U.P. Public Service Tribunal. As an interim measure, the Public Services Tribunal directed the opposite-parties to allow the personal selection grade to the petitioner with effect from 1-7-1986 in terms of G.O. dated 5-11-1986. Copy of this order of the Services Tribunal is filed as Annexure 2 to the supplementary rejoinder affidavit of the petition dated July 10, 1986. Annexure-1 to this supplementary affidavit shows that the petitioner has been allowed personal selection grade with effect from 1-7-1985 through order dated 2-7-1986. 23. For the reasons set out above, the petitioner has failed to substantiate any ground of attack raised in the writ petition. It has not been established that the petitioner was senior to opposite-parties 3 to 5. As such there is no question of quashing the grant of selection grade to these opposite-parties contained in Annexures 4 and 5. No case has been made out to hold that the G.O. dated 29-8-1982 (Annexure I) and in particular paragraph 3 thereof is any way arbitrary and illegal. As such relief to have paragraph 3 of this G.O. quashed merits rejection. The third relief for direction to opposite-parties I and II to prepare the seniority list has become in fructuous as the seniority list has already been prepared and published. The petitioner's claim for grant of selection grade with effect from 1-7-1979 lacks merit and has to be rejected 24. The writ petition is dismissed without any order as to costs