ORDER 1. The respondent was enrolled as a Clerk (General Duties) in the Indian Army on 13-10-1952 and was promoted to the rank of Naib Subedar with effect from 1-7-1969 with antedated seniority from 1-7-1967. As per Army e Instructions, as a non-commissioned officer, he was eligible and qualified for being selected for Permanent Commission (Special List) through the Service Selection Board. He was not selected for Permanent Commission (Special List) Quartermaster in respect of 1967 quota. This resulted in the respondent filing Civil Writ Petition No. 141 of 1974 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana wherein claim made was that he was selected by the Service Selection Board for Permanent Commission (Special List) as Record Officer and Quartermaster and he had applied for both the categories. He sought a direction against the appellant to treat him as a commissioned officer. The stand of the appellant, in opposition to the said writ petition, was that the respondent had only applied for appointment as Quartermaster for which he was not selected. This stand was accepted by the High Court in terms of judgment and order dated 7-10-1982 and the writ petition was dismissed holding that the officer had not been selected for the grant of Permanent Commission (Special List) as Quartermaster by the final Selection Board at Army Headquarters and he could not possibly be commissioned as "Record Officer" when he had not applied for the same. The special leave petition filed by the respondent against the judgment and order dated 7-10-1982 was h dismissed by this Court and thus came to an end the first round of litigation. 2. The respondent continued making representations before the authorities for his non-selection and, in the year 1990, he filed another writ petition (WP No. 14490 of 1990) in the High Court. This writ petition was disposed of directing the appellant Government to consider the representation of the respondent. The Government again took the same decision as before, namely, the officer was not selected as Quartermaster and had not applied for the post of Record Officer. 3. The aforesaid led to the third round of litigation by the respondent filing Civil Writ Petition No. 3501 of 1992. The Government again took the same decision as before, namely, the officer was not selected as Quartermaster and had not applied for the post of Record Officer. 3. The aforesaid led to the third round of litigation by the respondent filing Civil Writ Petition No. 3501 of 1992. In this petition, a learned Single Judge of the High Court held that the respondent had applied for both the posts i.e. Quartermaster and Record Officer, his suitability/fitness has to be considered for both, he was not considered for the post of Record Officer and, therefore, the appellant was directed to consider the case of the respondent for grant of Permanent Commission (Special List) as Record Officer on the basis of the interview already held for the post of Quartermaster along with all other relevant material for determining his suitability and fitness as Record Officer. The respondent was directed to be given the consequential benefits as well. The letters patent appeal filed by the Union of India having been dismissed, this appeal has been filed on grant of leave. 4. The respondent submits that as per government instructions, he had to be assessed for both Quartermaster as well as Record Officer on the basis of the same interview. That seems to be so subject, however, to the respondent having applied for both the posts of Quartermaster and Record Officer. It seems clear from perusal of Army Instructions that separate applications are required to be made for the two posts. In case that is done, since the Selection Board is the same, the instructions contemplate only one interview for considering the question of selection for one or the other post. 5. Admittedly, we are concerned with the Permanent Commission (Special List) post of 1967 quota in respect whereof, apart from the fact that the abovenoted order dated 7-10-1982 holding that the respondent did not make any application for the post of Record Officer, has attained finality, otherwise too, it appears from record that the respondent had not made such an application. It was incumbent to make separate applications for the post of Quartermaster as also Record Officer. We have perused Army Instruction 24 of 1959 which clearly shows that separate applications are required to be filed. Our attention has been drawn to Special Army Order No. 14/S/59 in respect of submission of applications for the grant of Permanent Regular 9 Commission (Special List). We have perused Army Instruction 24 of 1959 which clearly shows that separate applications are required to be filed. Our attention has been drawn to Special Army Order No. 14/S/59 in respect of submission of applications for the grant of Permanent Regular 9 Commission (Special List). According to the said order, the forms in Appendices p.: and B to Army Instruction 24 of 1959 are required to be submitted by the officer. The channel for submission of application for Quartermaster is to Military Secretary and for Record Officers, it is to Director of Organisation through staff channel. The application of the respondent mentions only Quartermaster. No other document has been shown to demonstrate that the respondent had made any application for the post of Record Officer. 6. We have also perused the minutes of the Final Board held on 26-8-1968 and 27-8-1968 for the selection of candidates for the grant of Permanent Commission in the Special List of Record Officers against 1967 a quota as also the minutes of the Final Board held on 27-8-1968, 28-8-1968, 29-8-1968 and 6-9-1968 for selection of Quartermasters. The name of the respondent does not appear in the minutes relating to the consideration of Record Officers while in the minutes for selection to the post of Quartermaster, his name appears having not been recommended for grant of Permanent Commission in that category. The reason mentioned against the name of the respondent is "lack of Quartermaster experience". 7. The Division Bench of the High Court has referred to a signal having been sent by the unit of the respondent which somewhat suggests that the candidature of the respondent was for both the posts i.e. Quartermaster and Record Officer. The signal from the unit cannot be a substitute for the requirement of making applications separately under Army Instruction c referred to above. Be that as it may, it appears that the signal has not been fully noticed in the impugned judgment of the High Court, a copy of which has been provided to us by the appellant. A perusal thereof shows that the signal referred to by the High Court was in respect of 1969 quota and not in respect of 1967 quota with which we are concerned. 8. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned judgment of the High Court d cannot be sustained. A perusal thereof shows that the signal referred to by the High Court was in respect of 1969 quota and not in respect of 1967 quota with which we are concerned. 8. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned judgment of the High Court d cannot be sustained. Therefore, setting aside the said judgment, we allow the appeal, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.