J. M. Srivastava, J — These two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the same petitioner Sri K. Riachbo raise and involve the question of petitioner's seniority in service were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. The petitioner filed petition Civil Rule No.121 of 1986 (re-numbered 73 of 1990 Mizoram Bench) challenging the seniority lists Annexures IV to Annexures VIII and claimed seniority above respondents 6 to 23, on the allegations that the petitioner belonged to Lakher minority, an economically, socially and educationally most backward Scheduled Tribe in the State of Mizoram. The first written competitive examination was held for recruitment to various Class IT posts under the Government of Mizoram in November, 1973. According 'o Government press release dated 9th April, 1974 (Annexure I) successful candidates in the written test 120 from general category and 32 from minority community of Lakhers. Pawis and Chakmas were called for interview. For the minority communities, two posts each were reserved. The petitioner was placed first in the separate list of Lakhers for reserved seats. Reserved lists for Pawis and Chakmas were separately prepared. Thirty six persons from the general list were selected. 3. The petitioner by order dated 16.7.74 (Annexure II) was appointed Administrative Officer against one of the posts reserved for Lakhers and joined on 16.7.74. Besides seventeen person from the general list and one from the reserved list for Chaknas were appointed during the life of the panel. No one from Pawis reserved list was appointed. The petitioner stated that respondent Smti Lalkangi Hnamte although appointed along with the petitioner did not join during the life time of panel but respondents 2 to 5 allowed her to join on 6.6.75. The petitioner further stated that respondent No. 7 was appointed on 15.10.74 and joined on 16.10.74. The respondent No. 8 not in the panel was appointed illegally on 15.10.74 and joined on 16.10.74. The respondent No. 9 was appointed on 15.10.74. aid joined on 16.10.74. The other respondents 10 to 15 were appointed on the last date of the life of the panel on 8.4.75 and joined after the expiry of the life of panel and as such the appointments were illegal. The respondent No. 18 was appointed on 4.12.74 and joined on 4.12.74. aid joined on 16.10.74. The other respondents 10 to 15 were appointed on the last date of the life of the panel on 8.4.75 and joined after the expiry of the life of panel and as such the appointments were illegal. The respondent No. 18 was appointed on 4.12.74 and joined on 4.12.74. The respondents 15,17,19, 20 and 21 were appointed after the expiry of the life of the panel on 10.7.75. The respondent No. 22 was appointed on 29.10.75 and joined on 21.11.75. The respondent No. 23 was appointed in 1981 on ad-hoc basis but later given retrospective effect from 14.4.75. 4. The petitioner further submitted that in the inter se seniority list of Group B (former Class II) officers holding civil posts in Schedule II of Mizoram Civil Service Rules 1977 published on 19.12.80 (Annexure IV) the petitioner was shown at serial No. 44 and the persons mentioned earlier who were junior to him having had joined service after him were placed above him. The petitioner raised objection. Another final seniority list was published on 11.7.81 (Annexure V). The petitioner's name was shown at serial No. 45. Another seniority list was published on 8.6.83 (Annexure VI) in which the petitioner was shown at serial No. 35. Again, another seniority list was published on 16.1.84 (Annexure VII) which was the same as seniority list dated 8.6.83, yet another seniority list dated 29.7.85 (Annexure VIII) was published canceling the list dated 11.7.81 (Annexure V) and 8.6.83 and 8.6.83 (Annexure VI) and declaring the seniority list dated 19.12.80 Annexure IV valid and final. 5. The petitioner, therefore, filed the petition and the main contention was that even though he had joined service on 16.7.74 earlier, even much earlier than the respondents 6 to 23 and that some of them joined and were appointed after the expiry of the panel he has been placed below them which was highly illegal and prejudicial to his interest. 6. In Civil Rule No. 1076 of 1987, the petitioner besides that already stated above stated that the Mizoram Civil Service Rules 1977 were framed and Mizoram Civil Service was constituted: The petitioner and the respon­dents were holding posts which were feeder posts for Mizoram Civil Service, hereafter referred as MCS Grade-II. The petitioner along with seven others was appointed by order dated 3.12.83 to officiate in MCS Grade II (Annexure II). By order dated 17. 3. The petitioner along with seven others was appointed by order dated 3.12.83 to officiate in MCS Grade II (Annexure II). By order dated 17. 3. 87 (Annexure III) 25 persons from Mizoram Subordinate Civil Service were appointed on substantive basis to Grade II of MCS with effect from 7.1.87 and by order of the same date and also with effect from the same date 7.1.87, 26 others including the petitioner at serial No. 7 were appointed on officiating basis to MCS Grade II, The petitioner's contention which flows from the contention in the earlier petition is that since his seniority was wrongly and illegally fixed, the order dated 17.3.87 for his officiating appointment to MCS Grade II was wrong because his junior has been given substantive appointment and he should have been appointed with effect from 16.7.76. 7. The respondents 2 to 5 in Civil Rule No. 121 of 1986 in the affidavit-in-opposition refuted the contentions and submitted that the petitioner " was No. 45 in the merit list at the examination held for recruitment to Mizoram Subordinate Civil Service Class II. The appointments were made to the available posts as per the merit list, but the members of Lakhers, Pawis and Chakma community were given appointment before their seniors in the merit list as a poll y of the Government to uplift the weaker section of the society. The petitioner was appointed for that reason, before his seniors in the merit list were appointed. The appointments to all the selected candidates could not be given at the same time due to non-availability of the posts and as and when posts were available appointments from the merit list were made. However, the Government had taken the policy decision that the seniority of the candidates was to be governed by the order of merit and not the date of appointment, that in regard to direct recruits inter se seniority was always fixed according to the marks obtained at the competitive examination The respondent No.6 Smti Lalkangi Hnamte was found by the Medical Board not fit being at the time in a family way and hence was allowed to join when she was fit and with the approval of the Govern­ment of India (at the time Mizoram was a Union Territory) retained her seniority. The validity of the panel had been extended by the Government. The validity of the panel had been extended by the Government. The name of the respondent No. 8 had been left out from the merit list due to bonafide mistake. The respondent No. 23., a teacher had been working under the Government since 1968 as Block Development Officer and had been allocated by the Government of Assam to the Govt. of Mizoram and was regularised with effect from 14.4.75 and accordingly his seniority was fixed at serial No. 37. In view of the representations received, seniority lists had to be issued 011 a few occasions. The respondents 2 to 5 in the other Civil Rule, in their affidavit-in-opposition in addition stated that the petitioner was considered by the Selection Board for appointment to MCS Grade II, but since the petitioner did not subs tan lively hold the post in Schedule II of MCS Rules, 1977 the petitioner could not be appointed. However, after relaxation allowed, the petitioner and others were considered. The Selection Board in its meeting on 7.1.87 for 51 posts, 25 for promotion quota recommended 25 others for appointment on substantive basis and another 26 others including the petitioner on officiating basis and the orders were issued accordingly. 8. The petitioner filed affidavit-in-reply in both the Civil Rules. 9. We have heard Sri M.M. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.M.M. Khan, learned Assistant Advocate General for the respon­dents, considered the submissions made and the materials on record. Scan page no. 341 appointed due to then non-availability of posts for otherwise again we see no other good reason why it was so done. 15. While it is true that in the absence of rules for fixation of seniority the criteria of length of service in suitable cases may be reasonable basis for determination of seniority as was held in D. P. Sharnia vs. Union of India, AISLJ V 1989 (2) 56, and in B. Gohain vs. NEEPCO, (1988) 2 GLR (NOC) 23 cited for the petitioner, yet where a competitive examination was held f-:r recruitment to posts and the merit list was prepared as a result of such exami­nation, we think fixation of seniority in accordance with merit list was on the basis of criteria was sound and correct. It may also however be noted that the respondent No.6 when appointed was in a family way and later was allowed to join. It may also however be noted that the respondent No.6 when appointed was in a family way and later was allowed to join. The Government of India had clarified that despite late joining the post she was to retain her position in the seniority list in the order of writ vide letter of February 1978 Annexure 8. The respondents having determined inter se seniority of the petitioner vis a vis others recruited as a result of said examination, at least did not commit any error as may call for interference in, exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 16. The respondent No. 23 alone was not recruited on the basis of said examination but he had been in service from long before under the Government of Assam and by order dated 20.1.75 f Annexure E) in pursuance of provisions under the North Eastern Areas Reorganisation Act, 197i whereby the Union Territory of Mizoram was constituted, Sri P. Hlychho (respondent No. 23) was allocated to Mizoram. He was later inducted into the Civil Service. Class II and assigned seniority at serial No. 37 in view of the service record, etc. We think no error was committed in the induction and fixation of seniority of respondent No. 23 in Civil Service Grade I/. 17. The learned counsel for the petitioner made grievance of some of the respondents having had joined later even after life of panel had expired. The respondents have said that the life of panel had been extended. In any case in so far as the appointments of said respondents were concerned the petitioner had not questioned the appointments at the time. It was only when the seniority lists Annexues IV and VIII were made final the same were challenged in Civil Rule No. 121 of U86 and while so doing the petitioner questioned the legality of appointments. We are not inclined to consider such belated challenge to the validity of appointments and hold accordingly. 18. For the aforesaid reasons we think the fixation of seniority of the petitioner does not require any interference. 19. We are not inclined to consider such belated challenge to the validity of appointments and hold accordingly. 18. For the aforesaid reasons we think the fixation of seniority of the petitioner does not require any interference. 19. As regards the questions raised in the other Civil Rule, when the examination was held in 1973 there were even no recruitment rules for the said posts with the result that later the Selection Boards appointment to MCS Grade II did not consider the incumbents of the posts in Schedule II of MCH Rules, 1977 as even qualified because the posts were not held on substantive basis but only on ad-hoc basis. The relevant rules had to be relaxed and the Selection Board which met on 7.1.87 at New Delhi made selections for appointment to MCS Grade II and on the basis of its recommendations 25 were appointed on substantive basis and 26 others including the petitioner were appointed on officiating basis. We have seen the records produced which bear out the respondents version The Chief Secretary, Govt of Mizoram in his exhaustive note dated 13.1'.86 had projected the matter in pursuance to which after approval, further action to matter before the Selection Board referred above was taken. The appointments to MCS Grade-II were made after due selection by a Selection Board and as such seniority by itself was not the only criteria. In any case, since the fixation of petitioner's seniority was justified and correct fie orders of substantive appointment of 25 officers (Annexure III) and officiating appointment of 26 officers including the petitioner (Annexure IV) were correct and require no interference. 20, For the aforesaid reasons, both the petitions fail and are dismissed. We make no order as to costs.