ORDER : Ruma Pal, J. - Leave granted. 2. On 6-11-1995 an order was issued by the State Government in exercise of powers under Section 37(3) of the U.P. Development Authority Centralised Rules, 1985 by which the past services rendered by Respondent 1 before us were to be counted for the purpose of seniority. This order was challenged by the appellants under Article 226 [WP No. 1166 (S/B) of 1995]. On 3-5-1996 the appellants' writ petition was admitted and the operation of the order dated 6-11-1995 was stayed. While the writ petition was pending, a second order was passed by the State Government on 3-2-1997 by which it recalled the earlier order dated 6-11-1995. Aggrieved by the order dated 3-2-1997 Respondent 1 filed a writ petition challenging that order [WP No. 198 (S/B) of 1997 dated 27-2-1997]. 3. By the impugned judgment Respondent 1's writ application was allowed on the ground that the order dated 3-2-1997 was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to Respondent 1. The obvious consequence of setting aside the order dated 3-2-1997 was that the earlier order issued dated 6-11-1995 revived. That being so, it was incumbent upon the High Court to have decided the appellants' challenge to the order dated 6-11-1995 in their writ petition, namely, WP No. 1166 of 1995. Instead of that, the High Court held: "Since the order dated 6-11-1995 has been cancelled by a subsequent order dated 3-2-1997, Writ Petition No. 1166/MB of 1995 has become infructuous." This was clearly erroneous. In the circumstances of the case the appeal is allowed by setting aside the aforesaid quoted finding of the High Court. Writ Petition No. 1166 of 1995 filed by the appellants must be heard and disposed of on merits by the High Court. It is pointed out by learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent 1 that the State Government has since amended the Rules in connection with the fixation of seniority. We are not expressing any view on the merits of the case of either party. It will be open to the respondents to raise whatever points as are available to them before the High Court and the appellants will be at liberty to deal with the same as they may be advised. 4. The appeals are disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.