JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner, who is performing his duties in the capacity of Superintending Engineer in Public Health & Engineering Department (for short 'PHED') of the State Government, has, by way of this writ petition, assailed the impugned notice dated 21.12.1983 (Annexure 9) which is a seniority list issued by the department as well as the order dated 12.1.1984 (Annexure 11) by which the petitioner was appointed as Executive Engineer (Civil) on promotion in the said department against the vacancies for the year 1974 and has prayed for redetermination of his seniority position which has been incorrectly determined by the respondents and also the confirmation of the petitioner as Executive Engineer accorded vide order dated 8.9.1977'. 2. The relevant facts for deciding the controversy between the parties are that the petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in speciality of Civil Engineering in the State Polytechnic after due process of selection by a duly constituted Selection Committee in pursuance of the order of the respondents dated 5.8.1967. Subsequently on being declared surplus, he was absorbed by the General Administration Department (for short `G.A.D.') in the Public Health & Engineering Department as Asstt. Engineer (Civil) on 7.7.1970. During the course of his tenure, the petitioner's seniority vis-a-vis regularly appointed Asstt. Engineers of PHED was determined with reference to Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Surplus Personnel) Rules, 1969 (For short "the Rules"). Thereafter vide notification dated 18.1.1973 when the seniority list of the Engineers of PHED was declared, the petitioner was shown at serial No. 13, while the other candidates, i.e., respondent Nos. 2 & 3, were shown junior to the petitioner in the combined seniority list of Asstt. Engineers (Civil) dated 18.1.1973 (Annexure 1) as against the total list of the candidates who were impaneled in order of seniority. 3. Subsequently vide order, dated 1 1.1.1975 a revised seniority list was issued by the department in view of the absorption of surplus Lecturers in Civil Engineering from the State Polytechnics to PHED (Annexure 2). Thereafter the D.P.C. again met to consider the seniority of the respective candidates in the cadre of Asstt. Engineers (Civil) and vide order, dated 22.1.1975, the seniority of the petitioner was brought down to serial No. 31 vide Annexure 3. Thereafter the D.P.C. again met to consider the seniority of the respective candidates in the cadre of Asstt. Engineers (Civil) and vide order, dated 22.1.1975, the seniority of the petitioner was brought down to serial No. 31 vide Annexure 3. Thereafter the petitioner w: s promoted as Executive Engineer (Civil) on recommendations of the D.P.C. vide order, dated 28.3.1975 (Annexure 4) and was placed at serial No. 2 immediately below Shri Jaikishan and was appointed as Executive Engineer Project Division and above Shri Ummedmal Lodha. Thereafter the petitioner was confirmed as Executive Engineer (Civil) vide order, dated 8.9.1977 (Annexure 5) and was placed at serial No. 11 in order of seniority w.e.f. 13.1977. Thus, the question of regular appointment and confirmation on the post of Executive Engineer became final. 4. It has been further contended that while the petitioner was discharging his duties as a Superintending Engineer since 15.1.1982 on 21.12.1983 the petitioner received a notice from the respondents stating therein that in view of his seniority position in the seniority list dated 4.9.1978, it had been decided that his seniority is to be revised and should be assigned below the regularly promoted junior most Executive Engineers (Civil) of the year 1973 and accordingly the petitioner's position came down to serial No. 27 from 15 vide Annexure 9 which is a notice regarding modification of seniority issued by PHED. The petitioner submitted his objections on 28.12.1983 with regard to the modification of his seniority position but inspite of this no final order amending the seniority list was issued by respondent No. 1. Thereafter on 12.1.1984 an order was passed that consequent upon the determination of year-wise vacancies and on recommendation of the D.P.C. in partial modification of the order, dated 28.3.1975, the petitioner was appointed as Executive Engineer (Civil) by promotion against the vacancies of the year 1974 vide order dated 12.1.1984 (Annexure 11). As a result, the petitioner who had so far been treated as a promotee of the year 1973 became a promotee of the year 1974 and was rendered junior to all the appointees of the year 1973. As a result, the petitioner who had so far been treated as a promotee of the year 1973 became a promotee of the year 1974 and was rendered junior to all the appointees of the year 1973. This fact has also been elucidated by the petitioner by enclosing the office orders dated 23.1.1973 Annexure A and B respectively by which one Shri S.K. Kulshrestha and B.S. Sharma who were appointees later in point of time than the petitioner and were earlier placed below the petitioner in order of seniority by respondent No. 1, were on the recommendations of the D.P.C. appointed as Executive Engineers (Civil) and were placed on probation for a period of six months against the permanent posts who have been impleaded as respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively in this writ petition. 5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid arbitrary action of respondent No. I the petitioner was left with no option but to challenge the impugned action of respondent No. I in this court by filing a writ petition, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 82/1984, in which he had challenged his wrong placement in the order of seniority consequent upon his absorption by respondent No. I on the post of Asstt. Engineer and against incorrect determination of seniority vide order dated 11.1.1975 by which he was placed below the direct recruits of the year 1967. The petitioner has also challenged the vires of Rule 16 (4) of the Rules which provides - "Whereunder any service rules, any specific period of experience is required for promotion from the new post to a higher post, but the post, on which the surplus employee was working prior to his absorption is different from such new post, credit to the extent of one half of the period during which the surplus employee worked in an equivalent or higher post prior to his being absorbed shall be given while reckoning such experience." 6. By order dated 16.6.1984 the petitioner was appointed as Superintending Engineer on urgent/temporary basis for a period of six months or till regularly selected candidates were made available along with two other candidates, namely, S.K. Kulshrestha (respondent No. 2), B.S. Sharma (respondent No. 3), O.P. Vyas and B.K. Surana in accordance with Rule 28 of Rajasthan Service of Engineers and Allied Post (Public Health Branch), Rules 1968 (for short the `Rules of 1968') vide Annexure 2 wherein the petitioner has been placed at serial No. 1, while other aforesaid personnel have been placed at serial Nos. 3, 4 and 2 respectively. Thus the appointment of the petitioner was provisional pending the revision of seniority list of Executive Engineers (Civil), dated 4.9.1978. It was certified that persons promoted by this order were seniormost suitable personnel in the cadre in the next lower grade. However, by subsequent notification dated 1.9.1984, issued by respondent No. 1, the petitioner was placed at serial No. 27, while the other personnel mentioned above were placed above the petitioner in order of seniority and the year of regular selection as Executive Engineer against the petitioner's name had been shown as 1974 vide Annexure 13, as a result of which the petitioner's seniority was considerably run down and thus affected. This was primarily on account of objections as well as the representations made by the other affected personnel for which modification was done to the detriment of the petitioner. The result of the said notification dated 1.9.1984 (Annexure 12) reveals that the petitioner was placed at Serial No. 27 in the revised order of seniority and was assigned the seniority by the review D.P.C. of the year 1974 which sat on 12.1.1984 while the order personnel as referred to above, were assigned seniority of the year 1973 over and above the petitioner. 7. The grievance of the petitioner in short is that he was appointed as Asstt. Engineer (Civil) Consequent upon his absorption from the erstwhile post of Lecturer in State Polytechnics where he initially joined on 10.8.1967 and as on the date of absorption in service of respondent No. 1, i.e., 8.7.1970 he had completed more than about 3 years of service, the benefit of which was not given to the petitioner while considering his seniority in the cadre of Asstt. Engineers for promotional post of Executive Engineer and above. Engineers for promotional post of Executive Engineer and above. In order to be considered eligible for promotion as Executive Engineer schedule appended to the Rules of 1968 stipulates minimum period of five years of continuous service on the substantive post on which the incumbent is appointed either by way of promotion or by way of direct appointment prior to his promotion on the next higher post apart from the qualification which are stipulated in the said Rules. According to the petitioner he had acquired five years' experience on the post of Asstt. Engineer as in January, 1974 itself should have been promoted as Executive Engineer w.e.f. January, 1974 itself but the department in gross violation of the Rules issued promotional order to the petitioner (Annexure 4) with inordinate delay of over one year which has resulted in deprivation of the petitioner's seniority for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer and above and if instead the D.P.C. was convened earlier immediately before completion of five years of requisite length of service experience which is required for determining the eligibility of the incumbents who are due to be considered for promotion to the post of Executive Engineers, then in all probability he would have been considered and promoted to the post of Executive Engineer w.e.f. January, 1974 itself, but because of the delay in convening the D.P.C. by the department he had adversely suffered in the matter of his promotion to the post of Executive Engineer and subsequently to the post of Superintending Engineer and above and the candidates who were immediately below the petitioner in order of seniority as per earlier seniority list which was issued by the department dated 4.9.1978 were placed above the petitioner by modification of the said seniority list later on by the department to the great detriment of the petitioner. 8. This anomaly is apparent to this court on perusal of the record from which it is clear that the petitioner by order dated 28.3.1975 was selected by the D.P.C. in accordance with Rule 24 (2) of the Rules of 1968 and was appointed as Executive Engineer on regular basis against the vacancies of the year 1973. 8. This anomaly is apparent to this court on perusal of the record from which it is clear that the petitioner by order dated 28.3.1975 was selected by the D.P.C. in accordance with Rule 24 (2) of the Rules of 1968 and was appointed as Executive Engineer on regular basis against the vacancies of the year 1973. Surprising enough the impugned order dated 28.3.1975 is conspicuously silent in this regard; whereas the department should have specifically mentioned in the said promotional order that the petitioner was promoted against the vacancies of the year 1973 and the said anomaly had adversely affected the petitioner's carrier in the matter of his promotion to the higher post. It is apparent from this approach adopted by the respondent that the respondent had deliberately kept quite over the matter by not mentioning the vacancy of the particular year against which the petitioner was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer with a view to accommodate the other candidates who were junior to the petitioner in terms of their respective appointments so as to bring them above the petitioner in the revised seniority lists which were issued from time to time. It will be pertinent to mention that notwithstanding the grievances which were voiced by way of several representations dated 28.12.1983 vide Annexures 9 and 10 respectively, the impugned order was passed on 1.9.1984 vide Annexure-13 as a result of which earlier seniority list dated 4.9.1978 was revised on the ground that since the persons selected by a subsequent D.P.C. in the year 1975 had been shown senior to the persons selected by the earlier D.P.C. of the year 1973 in contravention of Rule 29 of the Rules of 1968, therefore, it had become necessary to revise the earlier seniority list dated 4.9.1978 and this exercise was done belatedly after inordinate delay of over 10 years as on 1.9.1984 to the great detriment of the petitioner. Consequent to the revision of the earlier seniority list issued by the department in this case dated 4.9.1978, the petitioner was placed below the other candidates who were arrayed as respondents, namely, S.K. Kulshrestha and B.S. Sharma. 9. Consequent to the revision of the earlier seniority list issued by the department in this case dated 4.9.1978, the petitioner was placed below the other candidates who were arrayed as respondents, namely, S.K. Kulshrestha and B.S. Sharma. 9. At this stage I deem it appropriate to refer to the relevant rules of 1969 more particularly Rule 16 (4) of the Rules which has already been reproduced above which mandates that whereunder any service rules, any specific period of experience is required for promotion from the new post to a higher post, but the post, on which the surplus employee was working prior to his absorption is different from such new post, credit to the extent of one half of the period during which the surplus employee worked in an equivalent or higher post prior to his being absorbed by the new department to which he is absorbed, shall be given while reckoning his length of service for the purpose of promotion to the next higher post. 10. The irresistible conclusion which emerges on logical interpretation of the above rules is that the petitioner had completed three years of service as Lecturer in State Polytechnics w.e.f. 10.8.1967, i.e., date of his joining service as a Lecturer to 8.7.1970 when he was absorbed in PHED as Assistant Engineer (Civil). After credit of one and half years of service in the erstwhile State Polytechnic is given as against three years of service the petitioner was further entitled to be benefit of three years of service experience to be counted for his promotion to the next higher post of Executive Engineer on which he should have been promoted on completion of five years service in January, 1974 instead of 28.3.1975 vide Annexure 4. Thus, the petitioner in my considered opinion has been unjustly and arbitrarily deprived of his promotional benefit to the next higher post of Executive Engineer (Civil) on which he was due to be promoted in January, 1974 itself but because of inordinate delay on the part of the department as a result of the review D.P.C. which was convened on 12.1.1984, the petitioner has adversely suffered for which the department is to be blamed. 11. 11. As regard the writ petition, i.e., S.B. Civil Petition No. 82/1984 which the petitioner had earlier filed in this court on 11.9.1984, the petitioner had agitated the aforesaid issued and in which an interim order was passed by learned single Judge of the court on 15.10.1984. The perusal of the said order reveals that the learned Single Judge after considering the controversy at issue and the materials on record had arrived at the conclusion that it is thus obvious that though the petitioner ranked senior in the seniority list of Asstt. Engineers vis-a-vis respondent Nos. 2 and 3, he was considered ineligible for promotion as Executive Engineer at the relevant time when the respondents became so eligible and were so promoted as such. It was perhaps on this ground and also taking note of the fact that the petitioner ranked higher in order of seniority as compared to the present respondents, was promoted as Executive Engineer in 1973 on urgent/temporary basis as an ad hoc appointee and had to wait for regular promotion on the said post till 1975 when the promotional order, dated 28.3.1975 (Annexure 4) was issued belatedly by the department and it is as a consequence of this impugned order that the petitioner's regularisation in service as an Executive Engineer and his subsequent promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer was delayed by the respondents. 12. I am further of the opinion that it is not necessary for the petitioner to have challenged the vires of Rule 16 (4) of the Rules of 1969, since the presumption is always in favour of constitutionality of an enactment unless struck down as unconstitutional or declared ultra vires by the court. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, examined their rival claims and contentions and also relevant material placed on the record. 14. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, examined their rival claims and contentions and also relevant material placed on the record. 14. I am of the view that since the earlier S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 82/1984 in which an interim order was passed as aforesaid and no final order was passed by this court by giving final decision on merits of the case, that will be itself not amount to res judicata and consequently there was no embargo for the petitioner to have moved this court by filing the present writ petition and which he did on 27.11.1992 and which is being finally decided and disposed of on merit by this order of the court. This writ petition was admitted by the Division Bench of this court and notices were issued to the respondents but till date the respondents have not filed any reply by contesting the case on merit and hence the contentions of the petitioner remain uncontroverted on merits. I am consequently of the view that it is not open to the respondents to agitate the contentions of the petitioner by assailing the same by way of oral or written arguments, particularly when pleading are silent in this regard. 15. Learned counsel for the respondents contended at the bar that the petitioner is not entitled to count three years of service which he had rendered in the parent department as Lecturer State Polytechnics from 10.8.1967 to 7.7.1970 prior to his absorption in PHED as Asstt. Engineer (Civil) in view of Rule 15 (1) of the Rules of 1969 which provides inter alia that absorption of equated posts is possible and for the purpose of seniority service only on equivalent posts is countable and because the post of Lecturer in State Polytechnics is not equivalent to the post of Asstt. Engineer of PHED, as such the petitioner cannot take benefit of his previous service. He has further contended that as a matter of grace if the period of his service of three years as Lecturer is taken into consideration, out of the said period he is entitled to claim only one and a half years to be counted towards the service experience as Assistant Engineer. 16. He has further contended that as a matter of grace if the period of his service of three years as Lecturer is taken into consideration, out of the said period he is entitled to claim only one and a half years to be counted towards the service experience as Assistant Engineer. 16. In this regard I am of the view that the aforesaid contention is not wholly tenable in view of Rule 16 (4) of the Rules of 1969 which provides that where an employee of the State Government is taken on absorption in service of another department of the Government and where the nature of the post is different from the earlier post, credit to the extent of only one half of the period during which the surplus employee rendered service, shall be given while reckoning such experience and in view of this Rule the petitioner is entitled to count only one half of the period as against the period of actual three years of service rendered by him as Lecturer in State Polytechnics and thereafter the period of service rendered by him on absorption with PHED as Asstt. Engineer (Civil) is to be counted for the purpose of determining his seniority. 17. The learned counsel for the respondent advanced another contention that the petitioner was never allotted the year of 1973 for determining his seniority but he was selected as Executive Engineer by the D.P.C. on 1.9.1975 and was earlier assigned the seniority of the year 1975, is not entitled to claim the seniority w.e.f. the year 1973 and his name had infact been wrongly shown in the list of regularly selected Executive Engineers in the seniority list dated 4.9.1978. 18. In this regard I am of the view that this contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is again untenable in view of the fact that the petitioner had completed five years of service as Asstt. 18. In this regard I am of the view that this contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is again untenable in view of the fact that the petitioner had completed five years of service as Asstt. Engineer (Civil) with PHED in January, 1974 if the earlier period of one a half years spent by the petitioner as 'a Lecturer in State Polytechnics is also taken into consideration prior to his absorption with PHED, then he should have been assigned the seniority of the year 1974 instead of the year 1975 in accordance with the Schedule appended to the Rules of 1968 which stipulates minimum five years of continuous service by the incumbent subject to the satisfactory record of service being found by the D.P.C. before the said candidate was promoted to the next higher post viz the Executive Engineer and since the petitioner fulfilled the requisite condition of eligibility he was entitled to be promoted as Executive Engineer (Civil) w.e.f. January, 1974 instead of 28.3.1975 vide (Annexure 4) which deserves to be modified. 19. Admittedly the seniority of the petitioner as initially fixed was not challenged by the respondents for more than ten years but in my view the petitioner cannot take the benefit of seniority w.e.f. the year 1973 in the cadre of Asstt. Engineers (Civil) as claimed by him for the reason that he had not completed five years of continuous service on the relevant date and which he completed only in January, 1974 if reckoned from the date of his absorption in PHED and also taking into consideration his past service rendered as Lecturer in State Polytechnic. Consequently, I am of the view that the respondents have not correctly determined the seniority of the petitioner by their impugned order, dated 21.12.1983 (Annexure 9) while allotting him 1975 as his year of seniority qua other three candidates and infact he should have been allotted the seniority of the year 1974, since he had achieved five years of experience as Asstt. Engineer (Civil) consequent upon his absorption in PHED and as such he had been rightly allotted year 1974 as his year of seniority vide order, dated 12.1.1984 (Annexure 11) and the same is not open to challenge. 20. As per the Schedule appended to the Rules of 1968 for the purpose of determining seniority for promotion from Asstt. Engineer (Civil) consequent upon his absorption in PHED and as such he had been rightly allotted year 1974 as his year of seniority vide order, dated 12.1.1984 (Annexure 11) and the same is not open to challenge. 20. As per the Schedule appended to the Rules of 1968 for the purpose of determining seniority for promotion from Asstt. Engineer (Civil) to Executive Engineer (Civil) which is 100% promotional post apart from the prescribed qualifications a period of five years of continuous service as Asstt. Engineer (Civil) or in the case of Diploma holders 15 years of service experience as Asstt. Engineer (Civil) is stipulated. There is no scope for relaxation of requisite experience of five years on the said post for determining eligibility of the candidate for his onward promotion on higher post. 21. As regards the eligibility criteria for determining seniority of the respective candidates in the cadre of Asstt. Engineers (Civil) for their onward promotion to the higher posts, I am of the view that in this case admittedly the seniority list of Asstt. Engineers (Civil) was issued by the respondents on 1.1.1973 vide Annexure-1 and in which the petitioner was shown at serial No. 13 just above the direct recruits of 1967 and the said list was provisional and hence the question of having the same being finally determined, does not arise. This fact is also borne out from the language of Annexure-2 wherein it is mentioned that consequent upon the absorption of the petitioner along with other surplus Lecturers in PHED w.e.f. 8.7.1.970, their seniority had to be determined in the cadre of Asstt. Engineers (Civil) in accordance with Rule 15 of the Rules of 1969. 1 am further of the view that the case of respondent Nos. Engineers (Civil) in accordance with Rule 15 of the Rules of 1969. 1 am further of the view that the case of respondent Nos. 2 & 3 stands on different footing because both are direct appointees in PHED of the year 1967, whereas the petitioner was appointed in PHED consequent upon his absorption w.e.f. 7.7.1970 and he was earlier assigned the seniority of 1973 vide Annexure-1 which obviously was incorrect determination, since he had not completed five years of requisite service experience on the date when first seniority list was published in accordance with Rule 16 (4) of the Rules of 1969, he was entitled to the credit of one and half of the period of service experience in the parent department of State Polytechnics for the purpose of reckoning his seniority consequent upon his absorption in PHED which conies to one and half years as against the total period of three years of service rendered in the parent department plus the period of service rendered in PHED as on the date of his absorption i.e. 7.7.1970 if added to the same, he is entitled to the credit of three and half years of the service period in PHED as on 8.1.1974 on which date he would have completed five years' total service as Asstt. Engineer (Civil) for the purpose of assigning seniority in PHED. Thus admittedly he had completed five years of service on the post of Asstt. Engineer (Civil) as on 18.1.1973 when the first seniority list was published. 22. Thus, in view of the above the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of seniority only with effect from January, 1974, whereas the respondents have erroneously assigned seniority to the petitioner vide order, dated 28.3.1975 Annexure-4 in which the order of seniority has not been specifically mentioned. 23. In support of his contentions advanced at the bar learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment of the apex court as well as this court in the matter of State of Maharashtra and another v. M/s National Construction Company, Bombay and another : AIR 1996 SC 2367 , Smt. Pujari Bai etc. v. Madan Gopal, AIR 1989 SC 1764 and Rajasthan Scheduled Castes Development Co-operative Corporation Ltd. and another v. Vinay Kumar Audichya and another etc. etc., 1991 (1) WLC (Raj.) 25 . 24. v. Madan Gopal, AIR 1989 SC 1764 and Rajasthan Scheduled Castes Development Co-operative Corporation Ltd. and another v. Vinay Kumar Audichya and another etc. etc., 1991 (1) WLC (Raj.) 25 . 24. In the matter of State of Maharashtra and another v. M/s. National Construction Company (supra) the question which had arisen for consideration of the apex court was as to whether the bar of res judicata as envisaged under Section I I Civil Procedure Code would be applicable to the parties in a suit it was held by the apex court as under : "The important words are has been heard and finally decided". The bar applies only if the matter directly and substantially in issue in the former suit has been heard and finally decided by a court competent to try such suit. That clearly means that on the matter or issue in question there has been an application of the judicial mind and a final adjudication made if the former suit is dismissed without any adjudication on the matter in issue merely on a technical ground of non joinder, that cannot operate as res judicata." 25. To the same effect is ratio of the decision of the apex court in the matter of Smt. Pujari Bai etc. v. Madan Gopal (supra) it was held that dismissal of a writ petition in limine or dismissal on ground of lathes or on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy would not operate as res judicata in a subsequent writ petition filed by the same petitioner on a fresh cause of action, particularly when there is no decision on merits of the case in an earlier writ petition. 26. The learned Division Bench of this court in the matter of Rajasthan Scheduled Caste Co-operative Corporation Ltd and another v. Vinay Kumar Audichya and another (supra) held that when a writ petition is filed on more than one grounds and a particular ground is not specifically decided in the same, It cannot be said that the court had applied its mind to that particular ground. The principle of res judicata therefore, cannot be applied in subsequent proceedings on the plea that the decision on that ground was implicit in another question which was actually decided in the writ petition. 27. The principle of res judicata therefore, cannot be applied in subsequent proceedings on the plea that the decision on that ground was implicit in another question which was actually decided in the writ petition. 27. I am of the view that in view of the ratio of the aforesaid decisions is fully attracted to this case. It is not open to the respondents to advance the flimsy plea of res judicata against the petitioner for the reason that since in the earlier writ petition there was no final adjudication on merits, the petitioner was not estopped from filing the present writ petition in this court in a fresh cause of action. 28. Consequently, in the light of the above observations, the writ petition is partly allowed with the direction to the respondents to modify the order of seniority of the petitioner in the cadre of Assistant Engineers (Civil) by allotting him the year 1974 instead of 1973 as incorrectly determined earlier vide Annexures 3 and 9 respectively for determining his seniority impugned Annexure-3 dated 21.1.1975 and 9 dated 21.12.1983 are quashed and set aside with a direction to the respondents to issue a revised seniority list of the Asstt. Engineers (Civil) clearly indicating those candidates who have been absorbed on being declared surplus as well as the direct recruitees by specifying their respective years of seniority in strict order of merit. The petitioner shall be entitled to the seniority w.e.f. January, 1974 instead of 1973 as claimed by him and 1975 as incorrectly determined by the respondents vide Annexure-9. The said seniority list should be positively issued within a period of 8 weeks from today by convening the D.P.C. meeting in this regard. I am further of the view that it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the notification dated 1.9.1984 (Annexure -13) by which he had been allotted the seniority of the year 1974 and which had been correctly assigned to him. There will be no order as to costs.Ordered accordingly. *******