V. K, Khanna, C.J.-- These two writ appeals raise common questions of law. 2. Mr. A Dasgupta, the learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants and Mr. DK Talukdar, the learned counsel for the contesting respondent, ONGC and its authority, in both the writ appeals, have made a statement that both the appeals be heard together and disposed of by a common judgment as the arguments are going to be the same. 3. Brief facts for the purposes of adjudicating the disputes in these two appeals are that Writ Appeal No.84 of 1994 arises out of Civil Rule No. 1486 of 1990 and the aforesaid Civil Rule was filed by the petitioners/appellants who had appeared for interview which was held from 16.7.84 to 25.7.84. The interview was held for making appointment to the posts of Drilling Assistant (Drilling). The petitioners/appellants' position in the select list were at the bottom of the list. Petitioners did not get any place in the merit list but their names were in a panel in a secondary additional list consisting of nineteen candidates for the purposes of further requirement of the Oil & Natural Gas Commission (ONGC) on other posts. It has not been disputed that the main purpose of holding the interview was for making appointment to posts of Drilling Assistant (Drilling). To none of the aforesaid petitioners, appointment to the posts of Drilling Assistant (Drilling) was offered. However, the petitioners were offered appointment to the post of Drilling Assistant (Production). It is thus clear that as far as the merit list is concerned, the petitioners/appellants of Writ Appeal No.84 of 1994, admittedly, ranked nowhere whereas the respondents who have been appointed as Drilling Assistant (Drilling) ranked much higher in the select/merit list. From the records which were produced before the learned Single Judge, it was also clear that the seniority list is being maintained cadre wise, i.e., there is one seniority list for Drilling Assistant (Drilling), another for Drilling Assistant (Production) and a third for Drilling Assistant (Cementing). 4. The petitioners/appellants are trying to mix up three separate cadre seniority lists. Mr. From the records which were produced before the learned Single Judge, it was also clear that the seniority list is being maintained cadre wise, i.e., there is one seniority list for Drilling Assistant (Drilling), another for Drilling Assistant (Production) and a third for Drilling Assistant (Cementing). 4. The petitioners/appellants are trying to mix up three separate cadre seniority lists. Mr. A Dasgupta has frankly conceded that he cannot point out the name of a single person who is junior in the seniority list prepared for the cadre of Drilling Assistant (Production) and has been given promotion and thus the petitioners cannot be said to have been discriminated being senior to any person in the aforesaid list of seniority. The learned Single Judge has recorded a finding that the three cadres as mentioned above are separate and three seniority lists are being maintained. We are also of the opinion that the aforesaid finding recorded by the learned Single Judge is correct and if that be so, even on the own statement of Mr. Dasgupta, the petitioners have not been discriminated as no junior in the aforesaid seniority list has been promoted pursuant to the policy which has been annexed as Annexure A and clarified by Annexure Al filed in the appeal. 5. As far as other appeal, i.e., Writ Appeal No.312 of 1994 is concerned, that appeal arose out of Civil Rule No. 135 of 1991. The petitioners/appellant in the aforesaid appeal had applied along with the respondent Nos.8 to 20 (in the Civil Rule) for the posts of Drilling Assistant (Drilling) and Drilling Assistant (Cementing). Twenty persons had appeared in the interview for the aforesaid posts. The petitioners/appellants were informed that they were likely to be considered for temporary appointment to the posts of Drilling Assistant (Cementing), (emphasis provided). They were not given right to join on those posts on the basis of merit list. In the Civil Rule itself, it is clear from Annexures D and E to the Civil Rule, that the seniority lists for Dealing Assistant (Cementing) and Dealing Assistant (Drilling) are separate and the two cadres are separate as has been stated in the earlier paragraph of this judgment. Mr. In the Civil Rule itself, it is clear from Annexures D and E to the Civil Rule, that the seniority lists for Dealing Assistant (Cementing) and Dealing Assistant (Drilling) are separate and the two cadres are separate as has been stated in the earlier paragraph of this judgment. Mr. A. Dasgupta has also not been able to show us even the name of one person who is junior in the seniority list which is being maintained in respect of the Drilling Assistant (Cementing) who has been given promotion by virtue of the policy contained in Annexures A and Al annexed with the writ appeal and the petitioners have been discriminated in any manner so as to violate the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The learned Single Judge in our opinion, therefore, has rightly recorded the finding that the three seniority lists for the three cadres being separate and in their own cadres the petitioners' juniors having not been promoted, no grievance can be raised that the respondents have practised any discrimination and have violated the policy as contained in Annexures A and Al annexed with the writ appeal. In our opinion, the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge is, therefore, correct. 6. Mr. A. Dasgupta in the end has vehemently urged before us that as the ONGC has extended the benefit of promotion to the Drilling Assistants who have completed one year's service by giving 45 days' grace in case any employee had failed to join not because of his own fault; on the same analogy, the petitioners/appellants of the two Civil Rules/appeals should be allowed to have benefit of promotion having completed one year's service by now. 7. We have carefully considered the aforesaid argument. Annexure A is clear and is only applicable to those Drilling Assistants who have completed one year's service on 31.12.85. Annexure A1 only gives benefit to seniors whose juniors have been promoted in pursuance of the policy enunciated in Annexure A. In case the petitioners have completed one year after 31.12.85, they do not fall within the ambit of Annexure A and giving of any other direction by this Court would amount to framing of another policy and giving promotion by the Court after framing a new policy. In our opinion, the Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution would not frame a new scheme or policy and give promotion as in our opinion the same is an exclusive domain of the administration. Of course, it will always be open for the petitioners/appellants to approach the management of the ONGC to frame any policy and it will be for the ONGC to consider as to whether in respect of their employees such a policy should be framed or not taking into account the stagnation of the employees in one grade for long years. It is being again made clear that this Court is expressing no opinion on merits in this regard and it will be for the ONGC to independently consider this matter. 8. Subject to the aforesaid observations, we are of the opinion that the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in the two Civil Rules requires no interference. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. However, looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.