B. Lamare, J:- As these two appeals arise from a common judgment and order, hence they are taken up together. 2. The background for filling the writ appeal before this court is, that the appellant was appointed as Sericulture Demonstrator on 22/11/74 in the Department of Sericulture, Manipur. He was promoted to the post of Sericulture Expert on 31/12/75 and he was again promoted as ad hoc Assistant Director (Tasar) on 2/12/77. His ad hoc promotion as Assistant Director (Tasar) was regularized on 1/8/80. Thereafter, on recommendation of the DPC, the appellant was promoted as Deputy Director (Sericulture) on regular basis by order dated 20/3/91. 3. The respondent was initially appointed as Farm Overseer in the Department of Sericulture in the year 1974. Thereafter, she was promoted as Inspector in the year 1976 on 27/12/79. She was promoted as Assistant Director on 27/12/79. Thereafter, she was promoted ad hoc Principal (Sericulture) with effect from 1.2.83. On the recommendation of the DPC, the respondent was promoted as Principal (Sericulture) on regular basis with effect from 14/2/91 by order dated 20/3/91. 4. While the appellant and the private respondents were holding the post of Deputy Director (Sericulture) and Principal (Sericulture) respectively, the two posts of Joint Director and Project Manager in the Department arose. The appellant was allowed to hold the post of Project Manager by order dated 3/11/98. Aggrieved by this order of allowing the appellant to hold the post of Project Manager, the private respondent approached this Court in WPC No. 55/1999. The writ petition was disposed of by the learned single Judge by holding that the private respondent is senior to the present appellant. The judgment was rendered by the learned single Judge on 16/7/1999. It is this order of the learned single Judge which is assailed in this appeal. 5. On the backdrop of the above facts, we may now examine the claim of the respondent with regard to her seniority. Earlier, the respondent had approached this Court in Civil Rule No. 502/91 and this Court, by order dated 8/1/92 disposed of the writ petition by directing the State Government to treat the service of the petitioner as regular service with effect from 1/2/83, the date when she was appointed on ad hoc basis. Earlier, the respondent had approached this Court in Civil Rule No. 502/91 and this Court, by order dated 8/1/92 disposed of the writ petition by directing the State Government to treat the service of the petitioner as regular service with effect from 1/2/83, the date when she was appointed on ad hoc basis. However, this Court put a rider on this regularization that the petitioner/respondent shall not be entitled to claim seniority which shall be determined on the basis of the Service Rules and Government Instructions. On the strength of the said order passed by this Court, the order dated 8/12/93 was issued whereby the service of the respondent was regularized with retrospective effect, with effect from 1/2/83. In the order, it is also stipulated that she shall not be entitled to claim seniority on the basis of this order. 6. A perusal of the records show, that two separate final seniority list were published. For Deputy Directors of the Sericulture Department it was published in the Notification dated 22/8/94. In the final seniority list of Deputy Directors of Sericulture Department, the name of the appellant appeared at Serial No. 1 and his date of entry into the post of Deputy Director is 14/2/91. In the final seniority list of the Principal (Sericulture) of the same Department as per Notification dated 22/8/94 the private respondent is shown to hold the post of Principal (Sericulture) with effect from 14/2/91. However, provision is made in this seniority list that retrospective regularization from 1/2/83 was made in favour of the respondent as per the order of this Court in Civil Rule No. 502/1991. 7. From the seniority lists, it is clear that there is no common seniority list for the post of Deputy Directors and Principal (Sericulture) in the Department, and their seniority was determined separately. In the Sericulture Department, Manipur. Joint Director (Sericulture) Recruitment Rules, 1993, the Feeder post to the post of Joint Director is the Deputy Director (Sericulture) (Tasar) with five years regular service and Principal (Sericulture) in the Directorate of Sericulture with five years regular service. Therefore, the appellant and the respondent are equally eligible for the promotion to the post of Joint Director. Accordingly to these Rules, the promotion is by selection. 8. Therefore, the appellant and the respondent are equally eligible for the promotion to the post of Joint Director. Accordingly to these Rules, the promotion is by selection. 8. As there is no common seniority list for the Deputy Director and Principal (Sericulture) and the seniority of both the appellant and the respondent was made separately, it would be difficult for this Court to decide their seniority. Needless to say, that the Government has not decided the final seniority list of both the appellant and the private respondent for enabling them to be eligible for promotion to the post of Joint Director. The records also show that, by virtue of the order dated 8/1/92 passed by this Court in Civil Rule No. 502/91, the private respondent is not entitled to claim seniority on the basis of the order of the Court. That has to be decided as per the Rules and the Government Instructions and in absence of such Rules or Instructions, the law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court. 9. Since the inter se seniority between the appellant and the private respondent has not been decided by the Government, we consider that it would be proper that the same be decided by it. 10. For the aforesaid reason, the conclusion arrived at by the learned single Judge, that the private respondent is senior to the appellant, and that the matter having been decided by the Government, is not sustainable and accordingly that part of the judgment shall not be taken into consideration while deciding the seniority of the appellant and the private respondent. 11. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 16/7/99 passed by the learned single Judge in WPC 55/99 insofar as it relates to the seniority of the private respondent over the appellant, is set aside and quashed. 12. The State Government shall make an endeavour to fix the inter se seniority list of the appellant and the respondent within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of this judgment and order and, thereafter, shall proceed for the selection for promotion to the post of Joint Director/Project Manager within a period of 2(two) months from the date of decision of their seniority. 13. Both the appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.