D. N. Baruah, J.— This writ appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge in Civil Rule No.l of 1993. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate, Assam representing respondents 2 and 3 and learned counsel for fourth respondent. We refer to the documents relied on before us by the Annexure number given in the writ petition and not with reference to the Annexure number given in the appeal. 2. Annexure XXVI is a provisional seniority list in the cadre of Associate Planners (redesignated as Deputy Directors) in the Town & Country Planning Department published on 31.10.1988 ranking the fourth respondent as No.3 and appellant as No.4. Appellant objected to the same. Government by Annexure XXVIII order dated 19.3.1990 upheld the objection of the appellant and published final seniority list interchanging the ranks and giving seniority to the appellant over the fourth respondent. Fourth respondent's appeal before the Government having been rejected, he filed a writ petition in which he was directed to approach the Assam Administrative Tribunal. Thereupon he preferred an appeal before the Tribunal During the pendency of the app al, Government allowed the appellant to hold full charge of the post of Joint Director, Town and Country Planning in addition to his own duties under Annexure XXIX order dated 22.10.1992. The Tribunal after hearing all the parties found that fourth respondent is entitled to seniority over the appellant, set aside, the final seniority list to that extent and directed fourth respondent to be placed above the appellant. Thereupon appellant filed the writ petition which has been dismissed upholding the reasoning and conclusion of the Tribunal. Hence this appeal. 3. Town and Country Planning Department was established in 1957-58, initially headed by the Architect and Town Planner and containing two other categories of posts, namely, Assistant Town Planner (ATP) and Town Planning Assistant (TPA). Initially, the scale of pay of ATP was higher than that of TPA. It is stated by the appellant that in 1959 the scale of pay of the posts of TPA was upgraded to that of the posts of ATP. The Pay Committee appointed by the Government of Assam in 1962 submitted its report in 1964. Government thereupon issued the Assam Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 1964, generally accepting the recommendations of the Pay Committee. The Pay Committee appointed by the Government of Assam in 1962 submitted its report in 1964. Government thereupon issued the Assam Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 1964, generally accepting the recommendations of the Pay Committee. The Rules revised the scale of pay of the two posts for those holding a Graduate degree in Engineering or equivalent qualification. In the remarks column in its report the Pay Committee had suggested that the designation of posts of Town Planning Assistant should be changed to Assistant Town Planner. Government apparently accepted this recommendation also, but did not bring any Rule giving effect to the change. Tribunal stated that, that was because of difference in the qualifications prescribed for the two posts. By the 1964 Rules the pay scale of the posts of ATP and TPA was revised to Rs. 350-925. By the 1971 Amendment Rules it was prescribed that those possessing degree or diploma in town planning will get the revised scale of Rs. 350 -1000. Fourth respondent had this higher qualification in 1968 but the appellant did not have the higher qualification till late in 1970. The post of Assistant Town Planner was later redesignated as Assistant Director. 4. The service particulars of the appellant are as follows : 7.9.1967 - Asked to work as Town Planning Assistant. 23.3.1968 - Appointed Town Planning Assistant under Regulation 3 (f) of the Assam Public Service Commission (Limitation of Functions) Regulations, 1951 (for short, the APSC Regulations, 1951). 205.1968 - Above appointment regularised with effect from 7.9.1967. 17.9.1968 - Went abroad for higher studies without obtaining sanction of study leave or any other kind of leave. October, 1970 - Returned to India but could not join the post because, leave had not been granted. 19.11.1970 - Appointed afresh as Assistant Town Planner under Regulation 3 (f) of the APSC Regulations, 1951 and joined on 23.11.1970. 7.6 1971 - Appointment dated 19.11.70 regularised with effect from 31.5.1971. 10.7.1975 - Government finally granted earned leave for 11 days from 17.9.68 to 27.9.68 and extraordinary leave for 786 days from 28.9.68 to 22.11.70 in relaxation of rule 14 (2) (iv) of the Revised Leave Rules, 1934 to enable the appellant to undergo two years post-graduate degree in Urban and Regional Planning, Florida State University, USA. 14.11.1975 - Government ordered that the period of extra-ordinary leave sanctioned above will count towards increments. 14.11.1975 - Government ordered that the period of extra-ordinary leave sanctioned above will count towards increments. 21,8.1984 - Appellant temporarily promoted until further orders and appointed to officiate as Associate Planner under Regula­tion 4(d) of the APSC Regulations, 1951. 30.3.1989 - The above promotion regularised and the appellant tem­porarily appointed as Deputy Director until further orders. 5. Service particulars of the fourth respondent are as follows : 6.11.1968 - Appointed Assistant Town Planner under Regulation 3 f) of the APSC Regulation, 1951. He bad PG qualification. 22.7.1969 - Above appointment regularised with effect from 31.3.1969. 22.3.1978 -Above appointment confirmed with effect from 6.12.75. 22.4.1972 - Promoted under Regulations, 4 (d) of the APSC Regula­tions 1951 as Associate Planner. 20.12.75 - Promotion regularised with effect from 1.12.1975. 29.10.1986 - Above promotion confirmed. 6. There is no dispute that originally the post of Assistant Town Planner was a higher post than that of Town Planning Assistant and the two posts were ^n two different pay scales. Pay scales were made uniform by the 1964 Rules. By the 1971 Amendment Rules, pay scale of those having degree or diploma in Town Planning was revised and put on a higher scale than these without the degree or diploma. Fourth respondent who had this qualification was thus on a higher scale than the appellant. Appellant had break in service since he went abroad without obtaining sanction of leave. Break in service was subsequently regularised by granting earned leave and extra-ordinary leave counting the period for the purpose of increment. The grant of leave was finally made in 1975 after repeatedly rejecting earlier requests. Meanwhile, appellant was appointed afresh. If leave had not been sanctioned, there could be no doubt that appellant would be far junior to fourth respondent even assuming that the two posts were in the same cadre or equivalent posts. It was during this period that the fourth respondent was promoted temporarily as Associate Planner (1972) and promotion regularised (1975). The provisional seniority list of Associate Planners gave seniority to fourth respondent above appellant. This was reversed by the Government subsequently and this was set aside by the Tribunal whose judgment has been upheld by the learned Single Judge, 7. It was during this period that the fourth respondent was promoted temporarily as Associate Planner (1972) and promotion regularised (1975). The provisional seniority list of Associate Planners gave seniority to fourth respondent above appellant. This was reversed by the Government subsequently and this was set aside by the Tribunal whose judgment has been upheld by the learned Single Judge, 7. The Tribunal held that notwithstanding the equation of pay scales for the posts of Assistant Town Planner and Town Planning Assistant in 1964, the post of ATP must be regarded as higher or superior to that of TPA, that at a certain stage fourth respondent was on a higher scale than that of the appellant, while one post was gazetted, the other was not till late in 19/0, that the appointing authority for one post was superior to the appointing authority for the other post. On these grounds the Tribunal took the view that appellant could not be regarded as senior to the fourth respondent in the entry post. The Tribunal also took the view that fourth respondent was promoted to the next higher post several years before the promotion of the appellant and the seniority in the higher post must reflect length of service in that post and even assuming that appellant was senior to fourth respondent in the lower posts that cannot affect the seniority in the higher post. In this view it was held that fourth respondent is senior to appellant in the cadre of Associate Planner (redesignated as Deputy Director) and the final seniority list could not stand and the rights and entitlements of the rivals for further promotion must be worked out on the basis that the fourth respondent was senior to the appellant. The learned Single Judge agreed with the reasoning and conclusion of the Tribunal and these are challenged by learned counsel for the appellant. 8. There is no dispute that when the Department was established post of Assistant Town Planner was on a higher scale of pay than the post of Town Planning Assistant. The pay scales were equalised in 1964 to Rs. 350-925, qualification being the same. In 1971 those with degree or diploma in Town Planning were granted the higher revised scale of Rs. 350-1000. The pay scales were equalised in 1964 to Rs. 350-925, qualification being the same. In 1971 those with degree or diploma in Town Planning were granted the higher revised scale of Rs. 350-1000. The note to the Pay Committee Report of 1964 stated that the designation of the post of Town Planning Assistant should be changed to Assistant Town Planner. It is contended that the Government accepted this recommendation. Assuming it to be so, the Government never implemented it. Our attention is drawn to certain letters written by an Officer of the Government in the Town and Country Planning Department to the Accountant General saying that the two posts have been equated. But this letter is not supported by any amendment in the relevant Rules. As rightly pointed out by the learned Tribunal and the learned Single Judge, while the post of ATP was gazetted, the post of TPA was non-gazetted, the appointing authority for the post of ATP is Governor, while that of the post of TPA is the Town Planner. Therefore, the appellant's contention that the two posts must be treated as equal on the date when fourth respondent was promoted as Associate Planner was rightly rejected. Though appellant entered service earlier as TPA, fourth respondent entered service as ATP. The fact that appellant was asked to work as TPA in 1967 and appointed as such in 1968 long after the 1964 Pay Committee Report was accepted by the Government indicates that the designation had not been changed. When fourth respondent was appointed ATP, appellant was still working as TPA. His appointment as ATP was only in 1970. At the stage when appellant left the country without obtaining sanction of leave, fourth respondent continued to work as ATP (redesignated as Assistant Director). Leave was granted to the appellant only in 1975 and long before this date fourth respondent was promoted to Associate Planner. In these circumstances, appellant could not have been promoted earlier than fourth respondent. The effect of finalising the seniority list in the cadre of Associate Planners (redesi­gnated as Deputy Directors) granting seniority to the appellant over fourth respondent in 1990 was to wipe off the fact that fourth respondent was pro­moted to the higher post of Associate Planner (Deputy Director) 12 years before appellant was promoted. Appellant does not have a specific case that he challenged the promotion granted to fourth respondent in 1972. Appellant does not have a specific case that he challenged the promotion granted to fourth respondent in 1972. The seniority in the higher post must ordinarily reflect the service in that post. 9. Having considered the above circumstances, we are satisfied that the view taken by the learned Single Judge is correct and the same does not call for interference. 10. The appeal is therefore dismissed.