By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has prayed for quashing the final inter se seniority list (Annexure VI) which the Director of Accounts and Treasury, Government of Mizoram (respondent No. 3) published on 17.8.83 and for declaring himself as senior to respondent Nos. 5 to 12. 2. In short the petitioner's case is this : From 22.8.73 the petitioner was serving as Accountant in the office of Inspector General of Police, Mizoram. By a memo dated 1.5.75 (Annexure I) the Director of Community Develop­ment, Mizoram appointed him as Internal Auditor in his Directorate office. This appointment was made with approval of the DPC. In this appointment it was stated: "The appointment is purely temporary and may be terminated at any time without notice or assigning any reason thereof." The petitioner joined this post on 19.5.75. Thereafter, by notification dated 17.3.81 (Annexure II), the Government of Mizoram in Finance Department amalgamated the petitioner's post (ie Internal Auditor) in Finance and Accounts Service (Group A,B and D) and there the petitioner was made equal to Assistant Auditor. In this notification it was stated that inter se seniority of the officers would be fixed as per rule and procedures. Then by order No. 3U6/198J-82 dated 14.10.81 (Annexure III) the respondent No. 3 published a provisional inter se seniority list as on 25.7.83 showing the petitioner as junior to Assistant Auditors (respondent Nos. 5-12). This was done by counting the petitioner's service only from 17.3.81 ie the date on which he was amalgamated in Finance and Accounts Service. In this order it was stated that persons aggrieved could make representation to him within 30 days for necessary correction for publishing the final seniority list. 3. The petitioner submitted representation on 12.11.81 (Annexure IV) stating that he became Internal Auditor in CD Office from 19.5.75 and as the Govt. amalgamated his post in Finance and Accounts Service making his post equal to Assistant Auditors he is entitled be made senior to respondents 5-12 who became Assistant Auditors in Finance and Accounts office after 19.5.75. 4. By order No 38/1983-84 dated 17.8.83 (Annexure VI) respondent No.3 published final seniority list in which the petitioner was again shown as junior to respondent Nos. 5 to 12. 4. By order No 38/1983-84 dated 17.8.83 (Annexure VI) respondent No.3 published final seniority list in which the petitioner was again shown as junior to respondent Nos. 5 to 12. The petitioner preferred another repre­sentation on 1.9.83 (Annexure VIII) to respondent No. 3 for review of the final seniority list and in this representation he referred to letter No. CDE, 5/Pt dated 15.5.80 addressed by the Director of Community Development to Under Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, Finance Department, stating that in this letter (No. CDE.S/Pt) the Director communicated that the Internal Auditor accepted amalgamation "with a view to counting seniority in the cadre from the date of approval of the proposal for amalgamation or the date of appointment in the present cadre, whichever is earlier". 5. By letter dated 13.9.83 (Annexure X) the Joint Director, Accounts and Treasuries, informed that his representation dated 1.9.83 had been thoroughly considered and that in view of the Government of India's clear instruction on fixation of seniority on ex cadre persons into cadre post there was no ground to change the order 6. Being dissatisfied, the petitioner gave Advocates notice on 1.8.85 under section 80 CPC and having failed to get relief, he filed this petition under Article 226 on 3.3 86 before this Court (Guwahati) reiterating the claim which he made before respondents 1-4, namely, that as he was appointed Internal Auditor in CD office with approval of DPC and he joined the post on 19.5.75 and the Government subsequently amalgamated his post in Finance and Accounts office, he is entitled to be made senior to respondent Nos. 5 t© 12 who admittedly became Assistant Auditor in Finance and Acco­unts office after 19.5.75. In other words, he contended that grading him below respondents 5-12 without counting his service from 19.5.75 is discriminatory and illegal and it violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 7. This Court at Gauhati gave rule to the petitioner on 4.3.86 and later on transferred the case to this Bench (Aizawl Bench) for disposal. 8. Respondent No.3 (Director, Accounts and Treasuries) filed counter affidavit on 22.2.91 on behalf of respondents 1-4. Respondents 5-12 neither appeared nor filed affidavits. 7. This Court at Gauhati gave rule to the petitioner on 4.3.86 and later on transferred the case to this Bench (Aizawl Bench) for disposal. 8. Respondent No.3 (Director, Accounts and Treasuries) filed counter affidavit on 22.2.91 on behalf of respondents 1-4. Respondents 5-12 neither appeared nor filed affidavits. In the counter affidavit respondent No.3 stated that the petitioner's appointment as Internal Auditor in CD office being purely temporary and terminable without notice and the same not having been made according to the recruitment rules no right has accrued to him to claim senio­rity from 19.5.75 and therefore the petitioner's service as Assistant Auditor was rightly counted only from 17.3.81 i.e. the date on which he was encadred as Assistant Auditor in the Finance and Accounts Department. He stated that even the provisional list was prepared in accordance with the instruction of Finance Department conveyed under UO No. F1N(E) 24/81 dated 14.7.81 (Annexure A) showing the petitioner at serial No. 10. Furthermore he stated that on the advice of Appointment Department the petitioner was placed in the final seniority list at serial No.9 below the respondents 5-12. Thus the respondents desired dismissal of the petition. 9. The petitioner filed affidavit in reply on 25.8.92 stating that his service as Internal Auditor of CD office had been subsequently made permanent by Government order dated 18.8.78 (Annexure XVI) and that the amalgamation having been made by Government themselves and not at his request he is entitled to get seniority on the basis of this service in the previous (CD) office. 10. Mr. DK Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that as the petitioner was appointed Internal Auditor in the Directorate of CD with approval of DPC and he joined the post on 19.5.75 which, though temporary, was made permanent from 18.8.78 he is entitled to count his service for senio­rity from 19.5.75 and therefore he is senior to respondent 5-12 who joined as Assistant Auditors after 19.5.75. To support this he placed VS Murty vs. Deputy Chief Accounts Officers, (1983) 2 SCC 115 . There it was held : '' If the transfer was on administrative ground from one department or office to another, the seniority of the transferred Government servant shall be fixed with reference to the date of his first appointment in the former department or office from where he is transferred. There it was held : '' If the transfer was on administrative ground from one department or office to another, the seniority of the transferred Government servant shall be fixed with reference to the date of his first appointment in the former department or office from where he is transferred. If on the other hand, the transfer is at the request of the concerned Government servant, his seniority will be determined with reference to the date of his appoint­ment in the department to which he is transferred." 11. The other case placed by Mr. Das is Davinder Singh vs. Punjab State Electricity Board, 1990(3) SLR 113 (P&H). There the respondent No.2 whose name was Jaspal Singh, was appointed Sectional Officer in the Haryana State PWD(B&R) on 22.10.68. He served there and came over to Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala, as Sectional Officer on 5.5.70 and was promoted to Assistant Engineer on 11.12.75. The Board in the tentative seniority list showed his gradation without taking into consideration the service rendered by him from 1968 to 1970 in the PWD (B&R). On his representation the Board revi­sed his case by counting his earlier service under State Government towards his total length of service. This was challenged by a writ petition on the ground that the service rendered by him under the State Government could not be taken into account for the purpose of fixation of seniority and that even if it was to be counted he (respondent No.2) still remained junior to the petitioner. It was found that respondent No.2 completed 5 years service on 21.10.73, on which he acquired eligibility for being considered for promotion as Assistant Engineer under the Board against 10 percent seat meant for the promotees and as this had not been done by the Board before issuing the tentative seniority list the Board has now granted necessary relief to him as his total service (by adding the service rendered by him under the State Government) works out to be longer than that of each of the petitioners. It was held that the mistake was corrected by the Board and the same could not be called in question. 12. Mr. Neihchhunga, learned Government Advocate for Mizoram, contended that gradation was fixed by respondent No.3 according to the instruction of Finance Department dated 14.7.81 (Annexure A of the counter affidavit). It was held that the mistake was corrected by the Board and the same could not be called in question. 12. Mr. Neihchhunga, learned Government Advocate for Mizoram, contended that gradation was fixed by respondent No.3 according to the instruction of Finance Department dated 14.7.81 (Annexure A of the counter affidavit). It appears that Annexure A is a Photostat copy of a note sheet of certain file in Finance office which reads as follows : UO No. FIN (E) 24/81 dated!4.7.81 : As per provision of the Recruitment Rules the posts of Asstt. Auditors are to be filled up by open competi­tion. The Internal Auditors of CD Deptt. were not recruited accordingly, as such their seniority as Asstt. Auditor may be fixed in the cadre from the date of issue of the order encadering th e posts. Sd/-Illegible Director/Ac….. 14.7.81" On this ground be supported the final seniority list (Annexure VI, 13. In the instant case on recommendation of the DPC which was approved by Government on 29.4.75 (Annexure XIV) the petitioner was appointed Internal Auditor of CD Department on 1.5.75 and he joined the post on 19.5.75. The post though temporary was converted into a permanent post by order dated 18.8.78 of the Development Commissioner (Annexure XVI). He did not make a request to transfer him to Finance and Accounts office; but the Government for administrative reasons, amalgamated his service in Finance and Accounts office as Assistant Auditor by notification dated 17.3.81 (Annexure II). So the two decisions placed by the petitioner apply to his case and there can be no excape from holding that the petitioner's service as Assistant Auditor must be counted from 19.5.75 on which he joined as Internal Auditor in CD office and as admittedly the respondent Nos. 5-12 joined as Assistant Auditor after 19.5.75, the petitioner should have been made senior to them in the final seniority list. In the face of the above two decisions Annexure A is of no avail to respondents. 14. In the result, the petition is allowed and the final seniority list (Annexure VI) is quashed and set aside, the respondent Nos. 1-4 are directed to republish the final seniority list by showing the petitioner as senior to respondents 5-12. The rule is made absolute but without costs.