ORDER : Kuldip Singh, J. Special leave granted. 2. Surinder Mohan Sharma and Dinesh Kumar, Respondents 1 and 3 in the appeal herein, joined service of the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board (the Board) as Junior Engineers. They possessed the qualification of diploma in Engineering. Surinder Mohan Sharma acquired the qualification of AMIE while he was working as Junior Engineer in the year 1985. Dinesh Kumar also acquired Engineering degree in the year 1986. Dinesh Kumar was promoted to the post of Sub-Divisional Officer on 1-2-1989 whereas Surinder Mohan Sharma was promoted as such on 6-2-1991. It is not disputed that Surinder Mohan Sharma was junior to Dinesh Kumar in the cadre of Junior Engineer. The recruitment and conditions of service in respect of various posts in the service of the Board are governed by the statutory rules called "The Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board Service Rules, 1974" (the Rules). Rule 12 which provides for the seniority of members of the service is reproduced hereunder: "12. The recruitment and conditions of service in respect of various posts in the service of the Board are governed by the statutory rules called "The Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board Service Rules, 1974" (the Rules). Rule 12 which provides for the seniority of members of the service is reproduced hereunder: "12. Seniority, inter se of members of the service shall be determined by the length of their continuous service on a post in the service provided that where there are different cadres in the service, the seniority shall be determined separately for each cadre: Provided further that in the case of members appointed by direct recruitment, the order of merit determined by the appointing authority mentioned in these rules shall not be disturbed in fixing the seniority: Provided further that in the case of two members appointed on the date, their seniority shall be determined as follows: (a) A member appointed by direct recruitment shall be senior to a member appointed by promotion or transfer; (b) A member appointed by promotion shall be senior to a member appointed by transfer; (c) In the case of members appointed by promotion or by transfer, seniority shall be determined according to the seniority of each of the members in the appointments from which they were promoted or transferred; and (d) In the case of members appointed by transfer from different cadres, their seniority shall be determined according to pay, preference being given to a member who was drawing in higher rate of pay in his previous appointment and if the rates of pay drawn are also the same, then by their length of service in these appointments and if the length of such service is also the same, an older member shall be senior to a younger member." Surinder Mohan Sharma filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking a direction that he be declared senior to Dinesh Kumar on the ground that he had acquired Engineering degree - the eligibility qualification - earlier than Dinesh Kumar. The High Court by a cryptic and almost non-speaking order allowed the writ petition following its Full Bench judgment in Punjab SEB v. Ashok Kumar Sehgal, IR 1990 P&H 117 : 1990 Lab IC 249. 3. The High Court by a cryptic and almost non-speaking order allowed the writ petition following its Full Bench judgment in Punjab SEB v. Ashok Kumar Sehgal, IR 1990 P&H 117 : 1990 Lab IC 249. 3. It is obvious from Rule 12 of the Rules, quoted above, that the inter se seniority between Surinder Mohan Sharma and Dinesh Kumar could only be fixed on the basis of continuous length of service in the cadre of Sub-Divisional Officers subject to the applicability of any of the clauses under proviso to the said rule. The rule nowhere provides that the seniority is to be fixed on the basis of the date of acquiring the eligibility qualifications. The rule which was before the Full Bench in Ashok Kumar Sehgal case1 was entirely different than the rule in this case. The High Court became totally oblivious to Rule 12 of the Rules and fell into patent error in allowing the writ petition following the judgment in Ashok Kumar Sehgal case1 which has no relevance whatsoever to the present case. We, therefore, allow the appeal with costs and set aside the order of the High Court dated 1-2-1993 and dismiss the writ petition filed by Surinder Mohan Sharma before the High Court. We quantify the cost as Rs 11,000 to be paid by Respondent 1-Surinder Mohan Sharma to Respondent 3-Dinesh Kumar. Appeal allowed.