JUDGMENT T. Nanda Kumar Singh, J. 1. For deciding the points in issue in the present writ petition, the following brief facts suffice the purpose. 2. The Petitioners are staff nurses in the Regional Institute of Medical Sciences. They are claiming that they are senior to the private Respondent No. 3, Smt. Panem Lhouvum in the grade of staff nurse on the main ground that they had been appointed as staff nurses from the date earlier to the private Respondent No. 3. It is admitted by both the parties and private Respondent No. 3 that DPC for appointment to the post of staff nurses in the Regional Medical College was held on 20.6.1979 and 21.6.1979 and on the recommendation of the said DPC the present Petitioners were appointed to the post of staff nurses in the Regional Medical College, Imphal vide order of the Principal, Regional Medical College No. 62(A)/73-MC(I) Imphal, 28.8.1979 (Annexure-A/I to the writ petition). The Petitioners further stated that Anr. DPC was held in the year, 1978 and on the recommendation of the said DPC, 29 persons were appointed to the post of staff nurses vide order of the Principal Secretary, North Eastern Regional Medical College Society being No. B/579/78-MC, Imphal the 20th December, 1978 and the name of the private Respondent No. 3, Smt. Panem Lhouvum was not included in the said two appointment orders i.e. 28.8.1979 (Annexure-A/I to the writ petition) and 20.12.1978 (Annexure-A/2 to the writ petition). 3. In the tentative seniority list of nursing assistant and staff nurses of the Regional Medical College issued under Memorandum dated 14.2.1988 (Annexure-A/3 to the writ petition), name of the Petitioners are above the private Respondent whose name appears at SI. No. 135 of the said list. The said tentative seniority list was finalized under memorandum No. B/1093/84-MC, Imphal the 20th April, 1987 issued by the Administrative Officer, Regional Medical College, Manipur. In the said final seniority list, the name of Petitioners were found between SI. No. 63 and SI. No. 107 and that of the private Respondent was at SI. No. 131 showing the date of appointment of the private Respondent as 16.4.1980. The Petitioners, however, stated that there was Anr. revised tentative seniority list of staff nurses published vide notification No. B/1093/84-MC dated 27.9.1994 and in that tentative seniority list also the name of the Petitioners were between SI. No. 49 and SI. No. 131 showing the date of appointment of the private Respondent as 16.4.1980. The Petitioners, however, stated that there was Anr. revised tentative seniority list of staff nurses published vide notification No. B/1093/84-MC dated 27.9.1994 and in that tentative seniority list also the name of the Petitioners were between SI. No. 49 and SI. No. 90 and whereas the name of the private Respondent No. 3 was shown at SI. No. 115 showing the date of her appointment as 16.4.1980. The said tentative seniority list, after considering objections, filed by different staff nurses, was again finalized and published vide office memorandum dated 1.7.1996 (Annexure-A/6 to the writ petition). 4. In that final seniority list also the name of the Petitioners were found between SI. No. 44 and 93 and name of the private Respondent appeared at SI. No. 114. But to the utter surprise to the Petitioners, the Director, Regional Institute of Medical Sciences, Imphal issued a memorandum being No. B/1093/84-MC, Imphal the 30.3.1998 to the effect that "In partial modification of the final inter-se seniority list of staff nurses of the Regional Medical Sciences, Imphal published vide office memo No. B/1093/84-MC dated 1.7.1996 the name of private Respondent No. 3, Smt. Panem Lhouvum, staff nurse, will appear in SI. No. 43(A) above Smt. Thankholhing appearing in SI. No. 44 instead of appearing in SI. No. 114". 5. The Petitioners having aggrieved by the said office memorandum dated 30.03.1998 (Annexure-A/7 to the writ petition) for placing the name of private Respondent No. 3, Panem Lhouvum at SI. No. 43(A) above the name of Petitioners in the final inter-se seniority list of staff nurses filed the present writ petition for quashing the same. The private Respondent No. 3 filed her affidavit-in-opposition dated 23.5.2001 and additional affidavit-in-opposition dated 20.11.2001 to the present writ petition. The private Respondent No. 3 in her affidavit-in-opposition stated that both the Petitioners and private Respondent No. 3 appeared before the selection committee i.e. DPC for selection of nursing assistant and nursing staff held on 20.6.1979 and 21.6.1979 and they were recommended for appointment to the post of staff nurses and copy of proceeding of the said DPC is available at (Annexure-C/5 to the additional affidavit-in-opposition/addl. counter affidavit of the private Respondent No. 3). 6. counter affidavit of the private Respondent No. 3). 6. From bare perusal of the select list of selected candidates for appointment to the post of staff nurses prepared by the said DPC held on 20.6.1979 and 21.6.1979, it is crystal clear that private Respondent No. 3 topped the select list which was prepared in order of merit and names of the Petitioners are below the private Respondent No. 3 in the said select list. The Respondent No. 3 received on 14.8.1979 the offer form the concerned authority of the RMC for appointment as staff nurse. It is the case of the Petitioners and private Respondent No. 3 that the said acceptance of the said offer from should be communicated to the concerned authority of the RMC by 23.8.1979 and if no reply is received within the prescribed period offer form will be treated as cancelled. 7. The private Respondent No. 3 in her addl. counter affidavit/addl. affidavit-in-opposition specifically stated that she submitted her acceptance of the offer of the appointment on 22.8.1979 in (Annexure-C/6 to the affidavit-in-opposition). She also stated that by the time she was found to be pregnant of 12 weeks or over and accordingly she was found to be temporarily unfit physically on account of the pregnancy followed by delivery and her fitness certificate was submitted on 15.4.1980 (FN) after delivery, order appointing her as staff nurse was issued on 15.3.1980 by the Principal, RMC vide his order No. 62 (A)/73-MC(I) dated 15.3.1980 and she joined her duty on 16.4.1980 on which her temporary physical unfitness ceased. The Respondent No. 3, further submitted that the RMC authority followed all the rules and notifications of the Central Government as amended from time to time in the matter of appointment and promotion to the staff of the RMC and this contention of the Respondent No. 3 is not denied by the Petitioners. It is the case of Respondent No. 3 that G.I., MH and FP, OM No. F5-21/68 MA dated 12th December, 1968. It is the case of Respondent No. 3 that G.I., MH and FP, OM No. F5-21/68 MA dated 12th December, 1968. DP and AR OM No. 14034/5/75-Estt (D) dated 19th July, 1976 are applicable to the case of the Respondent No. 3 and OM No. 14034/4/84-Estt (D) dated 13.2.1985 regarding employment of women candidate in a state of pregnancy which is quoted in the 3 paragraph No. 5.5 of the reply affidavit of the Petitioner filed on 11.6.2001 is not applicable to the case of the private Respondent No. 3 inasmuch as the said Government of India Memorandum dated 13.2.1985 was not in existence on 22.8.79. The Respondent No. 3, further stated that her case would be covered by the Government of India Memorandum being No. G.I., Department of Personal and AR, OM No. 14034/5/75-Estt (D) dated 19th July, 1976 which is quoted hereunder: ...(12) Employment of women candidate in a state of pregnancy: It has been decided that a woman candidate, who as a result of tests, is found to be pregnant of 12 weeks standing or over, should be declared temporarily unfit until the confinement is over. The candidates should be re-examined for a fitness certificate six weeks after the date of labour, subject to the production of a medical certificate of fitness from a registered practitioner. It has been noticed that certain Ministries/Departments have not strictly followed the instructions contained above and certain women candidates were appointed even while they were in advanced stage of pregnancy. In order to avoid recurrence of such instances it has been decided that a woman candidate who as a result of tests is found to be pregnant of twelve weeks' standing or over shall be declared temporarily unfit and her appointment held in abeyance until the confinement is over. She should be re-examined for a fitness certificate after the date of confinement, subject to the production of medical certificate of fitness from a registered medical practitioner. The vacancy against which the woman candidate was selected should be kept reserved for her. She should be re-examined for medical fitness six weeks after the date of confinement. If she is found fit she may be appointed to the post kept reserved for her and allowed the benefit of seniority in accordance with para 4 of annexure to M.H.A. O.M. No. 9/11/55-RPS, dated the 22nd December, 1959. She should be re-examined for medical fitness six weeks after the date of confinement. If she is found fit she may be appointed to the post kept reserved for her and allowed the benefit of seniority in accordance with para 4 of annexure to M.H.A. O.M. No. 9/11/55-RPS, dated the 22nd December, 1959. It is also stated that under the said OM dated 19.7.1976 a woman candidate who is found to be pregnant of 12 weeks standing or over shall be declared temporarily unfit and her appointment held in abeyance until confinement is over, she should be re-examined for fitness certificate after the date of fitness subject to the production of medical certificate of fitness from registered medical practitioner. The vacancy against which the woman candidate was selected should be kept reserved for her and she should be re-examined for medical fitness within six weeks after the date of confinement. In compliance of the said requirements under the said office memorandum of the Government of India dated 19.7.1976 she submitted her fitness certificate on 16.4.1980 after delivery. The order appointing her as staff nurse was issued on 15.3.1980 by the Principal of RMC vide his order No. 62(A)/73-MC(I) dated 15.3.1980 (Annexure-C/1 to her counter affidavit). There is nothing wrong on her part and also on the part of the concerned authority of the RIMS in allowing the private Respondent No. 3 to join her duty on 16.4.1980 under the said appointment order dated 15.3.1980. Respondent No. 3 further submits that as she topped the select list of the candidates which include the name of the Petitioners and private Respondent No. 3 for appointment to the post of staff nurse prepared by the said DPC held on 20.6.1979 and 21.6.1979, she is senior to the present Petitioners even if her appointment order was issued latter on the circumstances mentioned above, i.e. her temporarily physically unfit on account of the pregnancy. Accordingly, she submitted her representation dated 5.8.1996 to the Director of RIMS for correction of the final inter-se seniority list in which her name appeared below the present writ petitioners who are below her in the merit list of the selected candidates prepared by the said DPC held on 20.6.1979 and 21.6.1979. In this regard the petitioners stated that there is no committee constituted vide order No. B/1093/84-MC dated 7.2.1996 of the Director, RIMS. 8. In this regard the petitioners stated that there is no committee constituted vide order No. B/1093/84-MC dated 7.2.1996 of the Director, RIMS. 8. In order to satisfy this Court about the existence of the said order dated 7.2.1996, Mr. Sahu, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 1 and 2 had been directed to produce record and in compliance thereof he produced the record and on perusal of the record it has been found that there is a order of the Director of RIMS dated 7.2.1996 for constituting a committee to examine and finalize the seniority list of nurses (staff nurse and nursing sisters) consisting of 1) Dr. N. Giridhari Singh, Sr. Librarian, RIMS-Chairman, 2) Shri N. Juge Singh, Asstt. Supdt., RIMS-Member and 3) Shri K. Apabi Singh, Accounts Officer, RIMS-Convenor. The matter regarding the seniority of the Petitioners had been placed before the said committee constituted under the said order of the Director of RIMS dated 7.2.1996 and committee in its meeting held on 24.6.1997 reexamination the final seniority list of the staff nurses dated 1.7.1996 on the basis of representation made by the Respondent No. 3 and made recommendations for placing the name of the Respondent No. 3 at SI. No. 44 above Smt. Thankholhing and above the Petitioners as the private Respondent No. 3 topped the merit list of the said select list consisting of the name of the Petitioner and Respondent No. 3. In pursuance of the said report/recommendation, necessary corrections in partial modification of the said final seniority list was notified by the Director of RIMS under Office Memorandum No. B/1093/84-MC dated 30.3.1998 (Annexure-A/4), present impugned Memorandum (at Annexure-A/7 to the writ petition). 9. Heard Mr. N. Kotishwor, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. B.P. Sahu, learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as well as Mr. A. Bimol, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 3. 10. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners strenuously submitted that as the Petitioners are appointed earlier to the Respondent No. 3 in the post of staff nurses of the RIMS, the Petitioners should be senior to the Respondent No. 3 in the inter-se seniority list of the staff nurses and also that the said impugned Memorandum dated 30.3.1988 (Annexure-A/7 to the writ petition) was issued in violation of the natural justice inasmuch as the Petitioners were not given any chance to say. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 submits that Respondent No. 3 should be senior to the Petitioners as the Respondent No. 3 topped the list of said select list consisting of the Petitioners and the Respondent No. 3 prepared by the said DPC held on 20.6.1979 and 21.6.1979 in order of merit for appointment to staff nurses and also that as the Petitioners have not acquired vested right to claim seniority over the Respondent No. 3. There is no question of violation of natural justice in issuing the impugned Memorandum dated 30.3.1998 (Annexure-A/7 to the writ petition) for placing the name of Respondent No. 3 above the name of Petitioners in the final inter-se seniority list of the staff nurse. 11. Learned Counsel for Petitioners also drawn attention of this Court to the office Memorandum prepared by the Ministry of Personal to the Public Grievances and Pension, Department of Personnel and Training, New Delhi dated 30.1.1997 regarding seniority and Office Memorandum dated 22.12.1959, in paragraph-4 of the Office Memorandum, it is clearly mentioned that notwithstanding the provision of paragraph- 3 above, seniority list of all direct recruits shall be determined by the order of merit in which they are selected for such appointment on the recommendation of the Union Public Service Commission or other authority, person appointed as a result of subsequent selections. 12. Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 3 had cited the following decisions of Supreme Court: (a) The Apex Court in the case of Chairman, Puri Gramya Bank and Anr. v. Anand Chandra Das and Anr. Reported in (1994) 6 SCC 301 held that seniority amongst the direct recruit has to be determined on the basis of ranking secured in the selection and not on the basis of that of joining date. (b) The Apex Court in the case of Dipika Devi (Smt.) v. Bhaba Kanta Hazarika and Ors. reported in 1998 (2) GLT SC1held that if the selected persons joined on different date, their inter-se seniority on the basis of merit shown in the select list, cannot be disturbed unless there is failure by someone to join duty within time allowed for this purpose. reported in 1998 (2) GLT SC1held that if the selected persons joined on different date, their inter-se seniority on the basis of merit shown in the select list, cannot be disturbed unless there is failure by someone to join duty within time allowed for this purpose. As stated above in the present case, there is no failure on the part of the Respondent No. 3 to join her duty within time allowed by the concerned authorities of the RMC to the post of staff nurses. The Apex Court in Surendra Narain Saha and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in (1998) 5 SCC 246 held that seniority of the direct recruit cannot be determined on the basis of date of appointment and date of joining to duty. 13. Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 3 in order to refute the submission of Petitioners' counsel regarding denial of natural justice to the Petitioners submitted that the Petitioners have not acquired any vested right to claim seniority over the Respondent No. 3 in the inter-se seniority list for the post of staff nurse for RIMS. In this regard as the Petitioners have no vested right to claim seniority over the Respondent No. 3, there is no question of violation of Principles of Natural justice in issuing the impugned Office Memorandum dated 30.3.1998 (Annexure-A/7 to the petition). He further submits that the Apex Court in State of M.P. and Ors. v. Mahesh Kumar and Ors. reported in (1997) 6 SCC 95 held that there is no question of violation of natural justice in withdrawing the order for granting grace marks to the candidate in a departmental examination without affording them opportunity of representation as there is no vested right over the candidate to claim grace marks. 14. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners also cited the following case laws: (i) (2001) 4 SCC 675 , (ii) AIR 1975 SC 984 and (iii) AIR 1998 SC 939 . 15. From perusal of the above case laws it has been clear that the said cases are not relevant with the issues in the present case i.e. determination of seniority of direct recruits appointed on the basis of merit list prepared by the same selection committee/DPC. 16. 15. From perusal of the above case laws it has been clear that the said cases are not relevant with the issues in the present case i.e. determination of seniority of direct recruits appointed on the basis of merit list prepared by the same selection committee/DPC. 16. From the above discussions, I am of the considered view that Respondent No. 3 is senior to the Petitioners in the grade of staff nurse of the RIMS and such being the situation there is no illegality in issuing the said impugned Office Memorandum dated 30.3.1998 (Annexure-A/7 to the writ petition) for placing the name of private Respondent No. 3 above the name of Petitioners in the final inter-se seniority list of the staff nurses of RIMS. Hence, there is no merit in the present writ petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.