JUDGMENT 1. - In each of the above numbered writ petitions the dispute is in respect of inter se seniority of the petitioners and the respondents No. 4 and 5, namely Ram Ballabh Sharan Sharma and Kailash Chand Sharma respectively. The facts are almost identical and therefore, we proceed to dispose of all these write petitions by this common order. 2. To understand the controversy between the parties in respect of their seniority, it will be proper at the outset to give their dates of initial appointment, promotions and confirmations etc in tabular form in the following table : S. No. Name of Petitioner/Respondent Post and Date of Initial Apptt. with merit Position Date of Confirmation Promotion as Inspector Gr. I Date of confirmation Promotion as Asstt. Registrar Date of Confirmation Promotion as D.R. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. PETITIONERS 1. Atma Singh (DBCW698/89) 20.2.57 (Insp. Exe.)(4) 1.7.59. 21.11.60. 21.11.61. 2.5.75 6.10.79. 18.11.83 2. K.K. Nagpal (DBCW-696/89) 20.5.57. (Insp. Exe.) (19) 1.7.59 19.9.61 19.9.62 25.5.76 23.5.78 18.11.83 3. T.N. Mathur (DBCW-75/89) 20.2.57 (Insp. Exe.)(15) 1.7.59. 21.11.60. 21.11.61 24.5.76 11.4.79 18.11.83 4. P.C. Jain 20.2.57 (Insp. Exe.) 1.7.59 21.11.60 21.11.61 25.3.75 6.10.79 18.11.83 5. B.L. Jain (DBCW-4913/88) 12.3.57 (Insp. Audit)(19) 1.7.59 10.1.63 10.1.64 24.5.76 23.8.78 6.4.85 6. M.L. Jain (DBCW-4411/88) 18.3.57 _______ 16.4.57 (Insp. Audit)(15) 1.7.59 10.1.63 10.1.64 21.12.73 26.12.74 20.7.78 Confirmed on 1.2.83 and further promoted at Joint Registrar 7. Sooraj Prakash Bahl. (DBCW-499/89) 1.7.59 (Insp. Audit) 14.3.57 (18) 1.7.59 10.1.63 10.1.64 6.4.85 - 26.11.88 8. Ganesh Narain Mathur 14.3.57 _______ 16.4.57 (Insp. Audit)(22) 1.7.59 10.1.63 10.1.64 6.4.86 w.e.f. 1.9.78 - - RESPONDENTS 1. Ram Ballabh Sharan 14.3.57 _______ 16.4.57/29.10.57 (Insp. Audit) 1.7.59 10.1.63 10.1.64 - - - 2. Kailash Chand 14.3.57 ______________ 16.4.57/29.10.57 (Insp. Audit)(33) 1.7.59 10.1.63 10.1.64 - - - A perusal of the aforesaid table will show that so far as first four petitioners in the table are concerned, each of them was selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission as Inspector Grade-II (Executive) in accordance with the Rajasthan Subordinate Co-operative Service (Class-I) Rules, 1955 (for short, the 1955 Rules) whereas each of the petitioners whose names appear in the aforesaid table from No. 5 to 8, was appointed as Inspector Grade-II (Audit) under the 1955 Rules. It will further appear that where as the petitioners whose names appear at No. I to 4 in the above table were selected as aforesaid as Inspector Grade II (Executive) by the RPSC on February 20, 1957 the petitioners whose names appear in the aforesaid table from No.5 to 8 were selected by the RPSC under the 1955 Rules as Inspector Grade-II (Audit) on March 14, 1957. The respondents Nos. 4 and 5 Ram Ballabh Sharan Sharma and Kailash Chand Shringi were also selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission as Inspector Grade-II (Audit) on March, 14, 1957. It will further appear that in the merit list prepared by the RPSC of Inspectors Grade-II the names of each of the petitioners namely B.L. Jain, M.L. Jain, Sooraj Prakash Bahl and Ganesh Narain appear at Nos. 19, 15, 18 and 22 respectively and their names appear in that order of preference in the merit lists, the names of the respondents Ram Ballabh Sharan Sharma and Kailash Chand Shringi in that merit list appeared at Nos. 29 and 33 respectively and they have been shown in that order of preference in the merit list. It will further appear that so far as the petitioners whose names appear at No. I to 4 in the table concerned as aforesaid they were selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission as Grade-II (Executive) on February 20,1957, i.e. much before the petitioners whose names appear at No. 5 to 8 and the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 whose names appear at No. 1 and 2 respectively in the aforesaid table in the caption of respondents. Thus, as per the merit list prepared by the RPSC, even the petitioners whose names appear at No. 5 to 8 and who were selected in the same competitive examination as the respondents Nos. 4 and 5, as Inspector Grade-II (Audit) and the names of those petitioners stand at higher place than the respondents, the respondents therefore had and could have had no lis so far as the petitioners whose names appear at Nos.1 to 4 in the aforesaid table. 3. It appears that earlier there was some dispute in respect of separate seniority list of Inspectors Grade-II (Executive) and Inspector Grade-II (Audit). The matter was taken up in the case of Baney Singh v. State of Rajasthan and others, 1980 WLN (UC) 481 and the court decided the aforesaid controversy. 3. It appears that earlier there was some dispute in respect of separate seniority list of Inspectors Grade-II (Executive) and Inspector Grade-II (Audit). The matter was taken up in the case of Baney Singh v. State of Rajasthan and others, 1980 WLN (UC) 481 and the court decided the aforesaid controversy. It may be stated that in the aforesaid case of Banney Singh (supra) two separate seniority lists dated September 27, 1973 and October 28, 1973 of Inspectors Grade-II in the Cooperative Department (Executive) and (Audit) were issued. Issuance of the aforesaid two separate lists was challenged on the ground that the Inspectors Grade-II in the Co-operative Department whether, Executive or Audit, form one class under the 1955 Rules and there should be common seniority list . The court in the aforesaid case of Baney Singh (supra) quashed the aforesaid two seniority lists and directed the respondents in that case to prepare common seniority lists, of Inspector Grade- II in accordance with the date of their substantive appointment as Co-operative Inspectors Grade-II in the light of the observations made in the order. The court allowed six months' time for the purpose. 4. In the earlier part of this order the dates of appointment, as well as confirmation as inspectors Grade-II whether Executive or Audit, of each of the petitioners and the two respondents have already been given. It has also been mentioned in the earlier part of this order as to when each of the petitioners as well as respondents was temporarily promoted as Inspector Grade-I and when each of them was confirmed on the said post. At the cost of the repetition it may be.said that whereas the four-petitioners namely - Atma Singh, P.C. Jain, T.N. Mathur and K.K. Nagpal had been appointed through Rajasthan Public Service Commission from the select list dated February 20, 1957 as Inspectors Grade-II, 1. 1980 WLN (UC) 481 the respondents Ram Ballabh Sharan Sharma and Kailash Chand Shringi were selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission as Inspector Grade-II Audit on March 14, 1957, and were subsequently appointed as such. No doubt the above four petitioners as well as two respondents had been confirmed w.e.f. the same date i.e. July 1, 1959. 1980 WLN (UC) 481 the respondents Ram Ballabh Sharan Sharma and Kailash Chand Shringi were selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission as Inspector Grade-II Audit on March 14, 1957, and were subsequently appointed as such. No doubt the above four petitioners as well as two respondents had been confirmed w.e.f. the same date i.e. July 1, 1959. It can therefore be said that it is beyond dispute and it cannot be disputed that whereas the three petitioners namely Atma Singh, P.C. Jain and T.N. Mathur were promoted as Inspector Grade I on November 21, 1960 and were confirmed as such on November 21, 1961, the fourth petitioner namely K.K. Nagpal had been promoted as Inspector Grade-I on September 19, 1961 and was confirmed as such on September 19, 1962, the respondents Ramballabh Sharan Sharma and K.C. Shringi were promoted as Inspector Grade-I on January 10, 1963, and confirmed with effect from January 10, 1964. It will therefore appear that at both the stages, i.e. at the stage of Inspector Grade-II and Inspector Grade-I the above four petitioners whose names appear at No. 1 to 4 in the table were senior to the respondents. Similarly, the other four petitioners whose names appear at Nos. 5 to 8 in the table were selected by the RPSC along with the respondents as Inspector Grade-II (Audit) on March 14, 1957 and were subsequently appointed as such. In the select list of the RPSC, as said earlier, the above petitioners were placed higher than the respondents, in other words in order of preference the names of these four petitioners were higher than the respondents, though all the above four petitioners and the two respondents were also confirmed as Inspector Grade-II (Audit) w.e.f. July 1, 1959. It may be further stated that the petitioners whose naives appear at Nos. 5 to 8 in the table as well as the respondents were promoted temporarily.as Inspector Grade-I (Audit) on January 10, 1963 and were confirmed w.e.f. January 10, 1964. A reference in this connection may be made to the order dated July 4, 1978 issued separately in respect of Inspectors (Executive) Grade I as well as Inspectors (Audit) Grade-I and the said order confirming the petitioners, except the petitioner, M. L. Jain, are available in the writ petition. A reference may be made to Annr. A reference in this connection may be made to the order dated July 4, 1978 issued separately in respect of Inspectors (Executive) Grade I as well as Inspectors (Audit) Grade-I and the said order confirming the petitioners, except the petitioner, M. L. Jain, are available in the writ petition. A reference may be made to Annr. 6 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition Nor 698/89 (confirmation order of Inspectors (Executive) Grade-I) and Ann. 7 in D.B. Civil writ Petition No. 499/89 (confirmation order of Inspectors (Audit) Grade-I). So far as Annr. 7 referred to above is concerned. the name of Shri M.L. Jain does not appear in it because it appears that M.L. Jain had not only been promoted as Asstt. Registrar after regular selection but he had also been confirmed as Assistant Registrar. Be that as it may, there cannot be any dispute that in the selection list of RPSC of Inspectors Grade-II (Audit), as stated earlier, the name of M.L. Jain was at No. 15 whereas the names of Sarva Shri Ramballabh Sharan Sharma and Kailash Chand Shringi were at Nos. 29 and 33 respectively. 5. It can therefore be said that the date of confirmation of Inspectors (Executive) Grade-I so far as the three petitioners, namely Atma Singh, P.C. Jain and T.N. Mathur are concerned, was November 21, 1961 and of the fourth petitioner K.K.Nagpal was September 19, 1962. It can also be said that the date of confirmation of other petitioners namely the petitioners at No. 5 to 8, as well as the date of confirmation of two respondents as Inspector (Audit) was January 10, 1964. Thus, the respondents had not raised or could have raised any grievance in so far as their initial seniority with the petitioner No. I to 4 in the table and they also could not have raised any grievance in respect of seniority with the petitioners No. 5 to 8 in the table as Inspector Grade-I (Audit) because as said earlier their names were higher in order of merit than the respondents in the merit list dated March 14, 1957, as Inspectors Grade-II (Audit). It may be stated that even in the seniority lists issued from time to time of Asstt. Registrars, all the petitioners and the respondents having been promoted as Asstt. It may be stated that even in the seniority lists issued from time to time of Asstt. Registrars, all the petitioners and the respondents having been promoted as Asstt. Registrars, all the petitioners were shown senior to the respondents and the respondents never raised any grievance in respect of their inter se seniority so far as the petitioners are concerned. In other words, at all stages from the very entry in the service after selection by the RPSC, the above petitioners have ranked senior to the respondents. 6. The aforesaid dates of confirmation, not only of the petitioners, but also in respect of others were sought to be changed by the respondents and objections were invited. As per the respondents, the necessity for the change of the date of confirmation arose as a result of the decision of this court in the case of Baney Singh.(supra). An order dated February 14, 1985 was issued (see Annr. 14 in DB. Civil Writ Petition No. 698/89). So far as the date of confirmation of the petitioners, whose names appear at No. I to 4 in the table is concerned, it was proposed that in place of November 21, 1961, for the three petitioners, namely Atma Singh, P.C. Jain and T.N. Mathur and in place of September 19, 1962 in the case of fourth petitioner, K.K. Nagpal, the date of confirmation should be changed to May 14, 1965. So far as other petitioners, whose names appear at Nos. 5 to 8 in the table, their date of confirmation as Inspector (Audit) Grade-I was proposed to be changed from January 10, 1964 to September 1, 1965. After the objections were considered in accordance with the provisions of rule 31 of the 1955 Rules, a final seniority list was issued on March 26, 1985. It was a common seniority list of Inspectors Grade-I (Executive) and (Audit) and it appears to be issued as directed by this court in the case of Baney Singh. It will appear from the aforesaid common seniority list that the names of the petitioners whose names appear at No. I to 4 in the table appears at Nos. 33 (Atrna Singh), 35 (P.C.Jain) 40 U.N. Mathur) and 42 (K.K. Nagpal). The names of petitioners whose names appear at No. 5, 7 and 8 in the table, namely - B.L. Jain, S.P. Bahl and G.N. Mathur respectively, were placed at Nos. 33 (Atrna Singh), 35 (P.C.Jain) 40 U.N. Mathur) and 42 (K.K. Nagpal). The names of petitioners whose names appear at No. 5, 7 and 8 in the table, namely - B.L. Jain, S.P. Bahl and G.N. Mathur respectively, were placed at Nos. 72, 71 and 75 respectively. The names of respondents Ramballabh and Kailash Chand Shringi, were placed at Nos. 85 and 89 respectively. As said earlier, so far as M.L. Jain is concerned, he has already been promoted and confirmed as Asstt. Registrar much earlier and therefore his name did not appear in any of the aforesaid lists though as said earlier, he was selected alongwith the respondents as Inspector Grade-II (Audit) and was placed higher than the respondents in order of preference in the merit list prepared by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. 7. The respondents being aggrieved by the change of the date of confirmation filed two appeals (Nos. 295/85 Shri Kailash Chandra Shringi v. State and 308/89 Shri Ramballabh Saran Sharma v. State ) before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, (for short, the Tribunal) where in they challenged the change of the date of confirmation. The Tribunal (held) under his order dated July 22, 1986, that the change of date of confirmation was arbitrary, without any basis. In the words of the Tribunal "Now in order to examine as to whether the change of date of confirmation of the appellant is in order or not, we have to look into the reasons mentioned by the respondents granting such change. The reasons have been mentioned supra. It has been said that the change was necessary to remove grievances of the senior employees, to bring just solution of problems facing department. It is apparent that no details have been given and in absence of those it is difficult to justify the proposal to change the date of confirmation. Another reason, said to be is that the previous authority had acted contrary to rules. Again that the details are wanting as to which rules have been violated. Again in the absence of any specific reason this factor is also not justified to take a decision to change the date of confirmation. All the more the decision is against earlier order given by this Tribunal in appeal No. 541/78. Again that the details are wanting as to which rules have been violated. Again in the absence of any specific reason this factor is also not justified to take a decision to change the date of confirmation. All the more the decision is against earlier order given by this Tribunal in appeal No. 541/78. The argument that this order stand washed off by another order of this Tribunal in another appeal No. 545/78 in which the recommendation of the DPC of 1978 was quashed has no force. We have gone through the both of appeals and it is apparent that the decision in appeal No. 541/78 is not based on the recommendations of the DPC. On the other hand it was alleged by the appellant that he was not considered by the DPC, and inspite of this, this Tribunal issued directions that the appellant was entitled to promotion as Assistant Registrar with effect from 31.7.1978. Another reason expressed at bar for changing the date of confirmation is said to be that the decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in Baney Singh, citation is WLN (UC) 1980 page 481. We have gone through it. It has been directed therein that two separate seniority lists of executive inspectors Grade-II and Audit Inspectors Grade-II cannot be sustained. Directions were given to prepare common seniority list of Co-operative Inspectors Grade-II. Here the seniority list revised is not that of Inspectors Grade-II but of Inspectors Grade-I. Thus, this argument also does not justify the change of date of confirmation. Moreover, there is some force in the argument of the appellant that the notice given to him for changing of date of confirmation did not contain detailed reasons and so the change cannot be allowed to stand. As discussed above the respondents have not disclosed the reasons in details even now and so in its absence specially when it has also not been pointed out as to what rule has been violated in the earlier confirmation, the change cannot be allowed to stand." It will therefore be clear that the consequence of the aforesaid order was that the date of confirmation was held to remain unchanged. It may be stated that so far as the petitioners are concerned, they were not parties to the aforesaid case. It may be stated that so far as the petitioners are concerned, they were not parties to the aforesaid case. So far as the petitioners, whose names appear at No.1 to 4 in the table are concerned, as stated earlier, they were selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission as Inspectors Grade-I (sic. 'II') (Executive) on February 20, 1957 much earlier to the respondents and even the petitioners whose names appear at No. 5 to 8 in the above table and who were selected on March 14, 1957, were placed higher in merit in order of preference in the select list prepared by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, than the respondents and as said earlier, at every stage what to say the petitioners whose names appear at No. 1 to 4 but also the petitioners whose names appear at No. 5 to 8 in the table have been senior to the respondents. 8. The aforesaid order of the Tribunal was challenged by the State of Rajasthan by filing a writ petition in this Hon'ble Court and that writ petition was dismissed. The order of the Tribunal was not implemented and therefore a writ petition was filed in this court and this Court allowed the writ petition No. 2708/87, Ramballabh Saran v. State of Rajasthan decided on December 8, 1987 and directed that the order dated July 22, 1986 passed by the Tribunal as affirmed by this court on August 27, 1987, be implemented and all consequential benefits may be given to the petitioner in that case. Then a contempt petition was filed in this court.During the pendency of the contempt petition, to give effect to the Tribunal's order the Government issued an order dated April 16,1988, modifying the seniority list as on November 1, 1976 of the Inspectors Grade-I (Executive) and (Audit). It will appear from a perusal of the aforesaid order that not only in respect of the respondents, but in respect of the petitioners also, instead of changed date of confirmation the original date of confirmation as Inspector Grade-I was taken into consideration and therefore, it appears that so far as the names of the petitioners Atma Singh, P.C. Jain T.N. Mathur and K.K. Nagpal are concerned, they appeared at Nos. 33, 35, 40 and 42 respectively. The names of other petitioners namely S.P. Bahl, B.L. Jain, G.N. Mathur appeared at Nos. 66,67 and 70 respectively. 33, 35, 40 and 42 respectively. The names of other petitioners namely S.P. Bahl, B.L. Jain, G.N. Mathur appeared at Nos. 66,67 and 70 respectively. The names of respondents Ramballabh and K.C. Shringi appeared at Nos. 77 and 81 respectively. Thus, in the common seniority list, the names of the petitioners, other than M.L. Jain appear at a higher place than the respondents and so far as M.L. Jain is concerned, as said earlier, he has been promoted as Asstt. Registrar on December 21, 1973 and has been confirmed as such on December 26,1974. The common seniority list of Inspectors Grade-I was as on November 1, 1976 and therefore the name of M.L. Jain could not have appeared therein. It will be worthwhile to state here that the name of M.L. Jain appeared at No. 29 in the order dated October 5,1979, the final seniority list of Asstt. Registrars as on July 1, 1978 and there the omission of the name of M.L. Jain in the common seniority list of Inspectors Grade-I as on November 1. 1976 is of no consequence and he was and continued to be senior to the respondents. 9. It was contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the order of the Tribunal merged in the order of this court when this court not only dismissed the writ petition filed by the State against the order of the Tribunal, it also allowed the writ petition of one of the respondents and issued mandamus to the State Government of Rajasthan and others to implement the order of the Tribunal. It was contended that this court cannot sit over the judgment of its own and because the impugned order dated November 2, 1988 was issued in compliance with the order of the Tribunal which order was merged in the order of this court, this court cannot set aside the same. 10. There can be no dispute that this Court cannot sit over the judgment of the Tribunal which has merged in the judgment of this court. But we have already referred to the order of the Tribunal and the point of dispute was about the change of date of confirmation of the respondents. The ground on which the Tribunal allowed the appeal was not that there was no basis for change of date of confirmation. But we have already referred to the order of the Tribunal and the point of dispute was about the change of date of confirmation of the respondents. The ground on which the Tribunal allowed the appeal was not that there was no basis for change of date of confirmation. Once the date of confirmation could not have changed in respect of respondents it could not have changed in respect of the petitioners who were at all stages senior to the respondents. It appears to be reason as to why the State had issued an order dated April 10, 1988 by which a reference has already been made in the earlier part of this order, wherein all the petitioners except M. L. Jain about whom we have already said where placed higher higher than the respondents. A look at rule 31 of the 1955 Rules will show that it is.in respect of seniority and under it not only the seniority of persons appointed on the lowest post of the service or lowest categories of posts in each of the group/section of the service as the case may be, shall be determined from the date of confirmation of such persons to the said post but in respect of persons appointed by promotion to other higher posts in the Service or other higher categories of post in each of the group/section in the service, as the case may be, shall be determined from the date of their regular selection to such posts. Under clause (ii) of the proviso to rule 31 the persons selected and appointed as a result of selection which is not subject to review and revision, shall rank senior to the persons who are selected and appointed as a result of subsequent selection. Under clause (iv) of the proviso the seniority interse of persons appointed to posts in Gr.II on the result of the one and the same examination, except those who do not join service when vacancy is offered to them, shall follow the order in which they have been placed in the list prepared by the Commission under rule 24. Under clause (vii) of the proviso to the aforesaid rule, the seniority inter se of Inspector Grade-I shall be determined by the date of their regular appointment on the post of Inspector Grade - II. Under clause (vii) of the proviso to the aforesaid rule, the seniority inter se of Inspector Grade-I shall be determined by the date of their regular appointment on the post of Inspector Grade - II. The scheme of the aforesaid rule 31 appears to be that one who has been selected in the earlier selection will rank senior to one who is appointed as a result of subsequent selection and inter se seniority of the persons selected under the same selection shall not be changed. Even under the aforesaid rule so far as the petitioners are concerned, they have to be senior to the respondents and neither the Service Tribunal has decided the inter se seniority of the petitioners and the respondents nor there was a list before it in so far as the inter se seniority of the petitioners and respondents is concerned. We are not sitting over the judgment of the Service Tribunal nor we are setting aside it so far as the date of confirmation is concerned, but in our opinion viewed from any angle, so far as the petitioners are concerned, they have been senior and continued to be senior to the respondents Ramballabh Sharan Sharma and Kailash Chand Shringi in the seniority list of Inspectors Grade-I(Executive) and (Audit), and we make a declaration accordingly. 11. Consequently, we allow all these writ petitions and quash the order dated November 2,1988 and restore the order dated March 26,1985 under which the common seniority list of Inspectors Grade I (Executive) and (Audit) was published in which the petitioners have been shown at higher place than the respondents. The petitioners shall be given all the consequential benefits within a period of three months. Costs made easy.Writ Petition allowed. *******