The petitioners are degree holders in the discipline of Mechanical Engineering. They came to be appointed as Junior Engineers (Mech) in the pay scale of Rs 450-700 against the posts sanctioned vide Govt order No. 233-PDD of 1973 dated 28-5-1973. This order contained a stipulation that they will be born on the seniority list of the Junior Engineers (Mechanical) Public Works Department and their inter-se seniority shall also be determined by that department. Petitioners figure at S.No. 2, 9, 13, 16 and 20 in the Annexure to this order. Vide Govt order No. 416 WIP of 1973 dated 29-5-1973, 40 posts of Junior Engineers (Mechanical) in the pay scale of Rs 450-700 were created and their selection was made to different departments as indicated in the said Government order. Vide Govt order No. 417-WIP of 1973 dated 29-5-1973 private respondents No. 7 to 18, 23 to 27, 29, 35,36, 37 & 47 came to be appointed as Junior Engineers (Mechanical) on the recommendation of the State Recruitment Board. They were allocated different departments as shown against their names. It is relevant to notice that the names of the petitioners also exist in this order at S.No. 2,9, 13, 20 and 27 against the posts meant for Power Development Department. This order also contained the following endorsement at the foot:- "The seniority of Junior Engineers will be in accordance with the merit as obtained by them in their last examination, the candidates of earlier batch getting precedence". Subsequently the Government issued another Govt order No. 440-WIP of 1973 dated 12-6-1973 creating additional 20 posts of Junior Engineers (Mechanical) in the irrigation and Flood Control Department as also Public Health Engineering Department both at Jammu and Kashmir as per the details contained therein. Vide Govt order No. 441-WIP of 1973 dated 12-6-1973 private respondents No. 5, 19, 20, 21, 22, 30 to 34 came to be appointed in various departments as Junior Engineers (Mechanical) on the recommendation of the State Recruitment Board. A similar endorsement on the foot of this order was made regarding seniority based upon the merit in the last examination and the candidates of earlier batch getting precedence as was the position indicated in Govt Order No. 417-WIP of 1973 dated 29-5-1973. A similar endorsement on the foot of this order was made regarding seniority based upon the merit in the last examination and the candidates of earlier batch getting precedence as was the position indicated in Govt Order No. 417-WIP of 1973 dated 29-5-1973. Vide Govt order No. G-606-WIP of 1973 dated 7-8-1973, the appointment of three persons made vide Govt order No. 417-WIP of 1973 dated 29-5-1973 was cancelled on their failure to report for duty within the stipulated period and subsequently, respondents No. 6 and 20 were appointed against the consequential vacancies. This order also contained similar stipulation regarding the fixation of seniority as referred to above in the earlier two orders. It appears that a tentative seniority list of Junior Engineers (Mechanical)/Degree Holders was circulated by the Public Works Department vide Circular No. 2-PW of 1977 dated 17-1-1977 inviting objections. Some of the objections were received and on consideration of the same a final seniority list of Junior Engineers (Mechanical)/ Degree Holders came to be issued vide Govt order No. 309-PW of 2000 dated 10-8-2000.. Petitioners were shown at S.Nos 67, 71, 73, 76 and 86 of this seniority list. Private respondents appointed vide Govt orders dated 29-5-1973, 7-8-1973 and 12-6-1973 were shown senior to the petitioners. In this order the date of appointment of the petitioners was shown to be 29-5-1973 instead of 28-5-1973. A dispute regarding seniority in the Engineering Department of the State arose and the matter finally landed in the Apex Court. The Honble Supreme Court passed judgment in Suraj Parkash v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others (AIR 2000 SC 2386) settling the seniority dispute, besides the directions with regard to fixation of seniority in Engineering Departments, certain general directions were also issued. Respondent-State was directed to settle the issue in the light of the directions issued by the Apex Court and consequently a tentative seniority list of AEs (Mechanical) was circulated vide Circular No. Works/M&S/70/2001 dated 22-6-2001 inviting objections from the concerned. On consideration of the objections received and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Suraj Parkashs case a final seniority list was issued vide Govt order No. 64-Works of 2002 dated 12-2-2002. Petitioners have been placed at S.No. 76, 80, 82, 85, & 90 of this final seniority list. On consideration of the objections received and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Suraj Parkashs case a final seniority list was issued vide Govt order No. 64-Works of 2002 dated 12-2-2002. Petitioners have been placed at S.No. 76, 80, 82, 85, & 90 of this final seniority list. One Khurshid Ahmed Jeelani was shown at S.No. 78 of this seniority list and as per Note-I appended to Annexure the seniority of said Khursheed Ahmed Jeelani was fixed as per Govt order No. 1012-PW of 1987 dated 13-11-1987. A copy of this Govt order has been placed on record as Annexure-A with the rejoinder. It is alleged that name of Khursheed Ahmed Jeelani does not figure in this Government order. Vide Govt order No. PW-262 of 1979 dated 12-4-1979 certain promotions were made to the post of Assistant Engineers (Mechanical) from the category of Engineering Graduates. Name of Khursheed Ahmed Jeelani is shown at S. No. 5 under Column IV of this order and he is shown to be from Animal Husbandry Department. It is relevant to mention that while the petitioners were appointed vide Govt order No. 273-PDD of 1973 dated 28-5-1973 the Government issued another Govt order No. 234-PDD of 1973 dated 28-5-1973 regarding the fixation of inter-se seniority of the incumbents appointed vide Govt order No. 233-PDD of 1973 separately. Petitioners have placed on record copies of the service books of petitioners No. 2,3 and 5. In their service books, the entries have been made regarding their initial appointment vide order dated 28-5-1973. As far as private respondents No. 22, 38 to 56 are concerned they were directly appointed as Assistant Engineers on 15-2-1997. It appears that pursuant to the directions of the Apex Court in Suraj Parkashs case, the Government with a view to settle the dispute of seniority collected information from various departments. Under Secretary to Government, Public Works Department vide its communication dated 19-3-2002 asked for selection list of candidates of the Service Selection Board on the basis of which the appointments of Junior Engineers (Mechanical) were made vide Govt order No. 235-PDD of 1973 dated 28-5-1973 from the Principal Secretary to Government, Public Works Department. This request was also made to the Secretary, State Recruitment Board, Jammu vide another communication issued on the same day. This request was also made to the Secretary, State Recruitment Board, Jammu vide another communication issued on the same day. Vide interim order dated 12-3-2004 a direction was issued to the State Recruitment Board to produce relevant record and provide information whether selection in regard to 86 posts was made by the Recruitment Board at one and the same time or on different dates and whether a common or different select lists were issued and if so on which date (s). A further direction was issued to furnish information regarding criterion, if any fixed by the Board for fixation of seniority of the selected candidates. Despite seeking opportunities, it was reported by Mr. Vinod Bakshi, Dy. Advocate General appearing for the Recruitment Board that record of the selection of 1973 is not available. He accordingly stated that the matter may be decided in absence of the record. This prayer was directed to be considered at the time of deciding the writ petition as is evident from the Interlocutory order dated 3-9-2004. As far as the vacancy position is concerned for the post of Assistant Engineers, the same are noticed year-wise in the minutes of meeting of the Public Service Commission held on 19-9-2000. Copy of minutes has been placed on record as Annexure J with the rejoinder filed by the petitioners. The State-respondents filed their reply. It is the case of the State that the selection was made by the Service Selection recruitment Board in the year 1973 to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil), Electrical and Mechanical for the Power Development Department and Public Works Department. Two separate select lists were issued and submitted to both the departments. The cadre of Mechanical Engineers and Civil Engineers was monitored by the Public Works Department and their appointments were to be made by the Public Works Department. However, the Power Development Department issued appointment orders in respect of 27 engineers against the total selected 66 engineers on 28-5-1973. However, while issuing this order a specific condition was incorporated therein that the seniority of the incumbents will be borne on the seniority list of Junior Engineers (Mechanical) maintained by the Public Works Department and their inter-se seniority shall also be determined by the said Department. However, while issuing this order a specific condition was incorporated therein that the seniority of the incumbents will be borne on the seniority list of Junior Engineers (Mechanical) maintained by the Public Works Department and their inter-se seniority shall also be determined by the said Department. It is further contended that the Public Works Department being the legitimate authority issued appointment orders on 29-5-1973 in respect of all Junior Engineers (Mechanical) including the petitioners who were earlier appointed by the Power Development Department on 28-5-1973 and posted them to different departments. Public Works department also issued subsequent orders on 12-6-1973 and 7-8-1973. While issuing the appointment order a specific condition was laid down regarding the fixation of seniority of Junior Engineers in accordance with the merit obtained by them in the last examination, candidates of earlier batch getting precedence. It is accordingly stated that the petitioners have omitted to disclose their merit and the private respondents having better merit in the last examination were shown as Senior than the petitioners. Petitioners have neither challenged the conditions incorporated in the appointment order dated 29-5-1973 nor the subsequent orders. Other-wise also the seniority position came to be settled for over a period of three decades. Same cannot be disturbed at this belated stage. The further stand of the official respondents is that the seniority list has been operated upon for the purposes of regular promotions at the level of Assistant Engineers right from 1976 to 1992 and again for the post of Assistant Executive Engineers. Therefore, there is no occasion to challenge the seniority list at this belated stage. Any challenge to seniority list at this stage is likely to create administrative and other complications and number of promotions made during all these years are likely to be affected. Regarding the selection, it is stated that all the appointments made vide Govt orders dated 28-5-1973, 29-5-1973, 12-6-1973 and 7-8-1973 were from the same selection. It is further stated that the said seniority list was issued pursuant to the directions of the Apex court in Suraj Parkashs case. Final seniority position was also settled after considering the objections received on the tentative seniority list vide Circular No. 2 -PW of 1997 dated 17-1-1997. However, no objections were received from the petitioners against the fixation of seniority. Petition is thus hit by doctrine of delay and latches. Final seniority position was also settled after considering the objections received on the tentative seniority list vide Circular No. 2 -PW of 1997 dated 17-1-1997. However, no objections were received from the petitioners against the fixation of seniority. Petition is thus hit by doctrine of delay and latches. All promotions made to the post of Assistant Engineers were subject to their clearance by DPC. Seniority has been fixed from the date of regularization of promotion as Assistant Engineers through DPC/PSC or direct recruitment, as the case may be and since the petitioners were Junior to the private respondents as Junior Engineers they came to be regularized as Assistant Engineers, after the respondents and figured in the seniority list accordingly. Private respondents have filed their objections. Respondents No. 21 and 23 in their reply placed on record copy of Govt order No. PW-367 of 1979 dated 10-12-1979, whereby a revised seniority list was issued. Prior to the issuance of this list a tentative seniority list was issued vide Circular No. 10 of 1977 dated 25-5-1977. In this Govt order, it was specifically stated that the Recruitment Board had made recommendations of Junior Engineers (Mechanical) and regarding fixation of their seniority, it was stipulated that the same shall be fixed in accordance with the merit as obtained by the selectees in their last examination and earlier batch getting precedence over the subsequent batch. It was further notified in this order that Rule 24 of the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1956 did not apply in these cases for determination of their inter-se seniority. Petitioners were shown at S.No. 62, 66, 68, 72 and 82 respectively in this seniority list, whereas respondents No. 21 and 23 were shown at S.No. 49 and 51 respectively. Similarly, the other private respondents were also shown senior to the petitioners. It is alleged that when the tentative seniority list was issued vide Circular No. 10 of 1977 objections were invited. However, no objections were filed by the petitioners. Respondents have also placed on record copy of the Govt order No. 324- PW of 1979 dated 4-7-1979 whereby the seniority was directed to be fixed on the basis of recommendations of the State Recruitment Board in accordance with the merit obtained by the selectees in their last examination and earlier batch taking precedence over the subsequent batch. Respondents have also placed on record copy of the Govt order No. 324- PW of 1979 dated 4-7-1979 whereby the seniority was directed to be fixed on the basis of recommendations of the State Recruitment Board in accordance with the merit obtained by the selectees in their last examination and earlier batch taking precedence over the subsequent batch. This order was issued on the basis of some directions passed in writ petition No. 42/77. This order was also accompanied with the Annexures containing the merit position batch-wise. It is accordingly stated that neither the merit position has been disputed nor this Govt order was ever challenged. Private respondents have also placed on record copy of the judgment dated 31-3-1989 passed in Writ Petition No. 626/87 Arvind Kumar Abrol v. State and others. Vide this judgment, the petitioners therein were directed to be notionally promoted w.e.f. 12-4-1979 when the private respondents therein were promoted. A further direction was issued to fix their seniority. The Court also up-hold the seniority position as issued vide Govt order No. 673 of 1979 dated 10-12-1979.. This judgment was up-held by a Division Bench in LPA (W) No. 9 of 1989. It has been brought to my notice that the writ petitioners were respondents in writ petition No. 626/1987 and even LPA was filed by one of the petitioners, namely, Attan Ji Fotedar. It is accordingly contended on behalf of the respondents that his seniority position having been settled vide judgment dated 31-3-1989 the issue cannot be re-opened after a lapse of more than 25 years. The final seniority list as Notified vide Govt order No. 308-PW of 2000 dated 10-8-2000. impugned in this petition is based upon the seniority position as was notified in the year 1979 and has been approved by this Court in writ petition No. 626/ 1989. The un-disputed facts that emerge from the record referred to above are:- (i) The petitioners and private respondents were candidates in the same selection though appointed on different dates; (ii) The petitioners were appointed by the Power Development Department vide order dated 28-5-1973; (iii) The private respondents were appointed vide different orders dated 29-5-1973, 10-6-1973 and 7-8-1973. Though the petitioners were again shown to have been appointed vide order dated 29-5-1973. Though the petitioners were again shown to have been appointed vide order dated 29-5-1973. (iv) The appointment orders of the petitioners dated 28-5-1973 contained a stipulation that their seniority shall be maintained by the Public Works Department and the inter-se seniority shall also be fixed by the said department; (v) All appointment orders dated 29-5-1973, 10-6-1973 and 7-8-1973 contained a clear stipulation that the inter-se seniority of the appointees shall be fixed on the basis of their merit in the last examination and earlier batch taking precedence over the subsequent batch. (vi) Petitioners were admittedly also parties to order dated 29-5-1973. (vii) A tentative seniority list was issued on 4-7-1979 and final seniority list was issued on 10-12-1979. Petitioners were shown junior to the private respondents in this seniority lists. (viii) Petitioners and some others were promoted as Assistant Engineers. This promotion was challenged by respondents No. 21 and 23 in writ petition No. 626/89 and the seniority position as notified vide order dated 10-12-1989 was up-held by the High Court vide judgment dated 31-3-1989 which was also up-held by a Division Bench on 20-11-1990. Petitioners were respondents in this writ petition and even the LPA was filed by one of them. Based upon the above facts that have been established on record, the dispute of seniority between the petitioners and the private respondents came to be settled on 31-3-1989 in writ petition No. 626/87. Petitioners did not disclose this fact in the writ petition. Though the petitioners were initially appointed on 28-5-1973 by the Power Development Department, however, they were again shown to have been appointed vide order dated 29-5-1973 by the Public Works Department. In all the seniority lists issued so far the date of appointment of the petitioners has been indicated as 29-5-1973. Petitioners never disputed the date of their appointment, stipulation contained in order dated 28-5-1973 that their seniority will be fixed by the Public Works Department as also the stipulation contained in orders dated 29-5-1973, 10-6-1973 and 7-8-1973, whereby the seniority was required to be fixed on the basis of merit in the last examination by the selectees and the earlier batch getting precedence over the subsequent batch. Though the fixation of seniority was governed by Rule 24 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1956 at the relevant time, however, it appears that the Services Selection Board adopted this criterion for determining their merit. Respondents were directed to produce the selection record and the criterion adopted for making selection and determination of seniority. However, they failed to produce the same. An affidavit has been filed by the Service Selection Board through its Secretary on 11-8-2004 stating therein that the record pertaining to the selection of Junior Engineers, selected in the year 1973 by the then State Service Selection Board is not available. A statement was also made by Mr. Vinod Bakshi, Dy Adv General before this Court to this effect. However, from the stipulations contained in various appointment orders referred to above and the merit position of the selectees as notified vide Govt order No. PW 324 of 1979 dated 4-7-1979 and the batch-wise position, it appears that the service selection Board has adopted the criterion of making selection which includes the merit position in the last examination and the selection was carried out batch-wise, earlier batch getting precedence over the subsequent batch. Copy of this order is on record as Annexure R-2 with the reply filed by respondents No. 21 and 23. Annexure thereto clearly indicate the merit and batch-wise position of the selectees. If this was the criterion fixed by the selection Board and the recommendations were accordingly made on that basis, I do not find any illegality in the same though appointment were made by different orders but all appointment arose out of the same selection and in terms of Rule 24 (1) (b) of the J&K Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1956, the merit in the selection of the candidates shall determine their seniority. Rule 24 (1) (b) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules is re-produced as under:- "24 (1) (b): In the case of those recruited direct except those who do not join their duties when vacancies are offered to them according to the positions attained by and assigned to them in order of merit at the time of competitive examination or on the basis of merit, ability and physical fitness etc, in case no such examination is held for the purpose of making selections; It is admitted position of the litigating parties in this petition that the petitioners and the private respondents came to be appointed pursuant to the same selection and on the basis of the criterion adopted, private respondents had better merit and they also belong to earlier batch than the petitioners and in terms of Rule 24 (1) (b), the merit in the selection process is to determine the seniority, irrespective of date of appointment. The controversy involved in this petition is settled by the Apex Court in State of Utter Pradesh v. Rafiquddin, AIR 1988 SC 162, wherein the Apex Court held as under:- "8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length and having given our anxious consideration to the controversy raised in these cases, we are of the opinion that the Division Bench completely misconceived the Rules and rendered the judgment in total disregard of the facts available on record. As discussed earlier the Rules entrust the Public Service Commission with the duty of holding competitive examination and recommending the names of suitable candidates as approved by it for appointment to the service on the basis of the proficiency shown by the candidates at the examination adjudged on the basis of the aggregate marks secured by them. The appointment to service is made from the list forwarded by the commission to the State Government, Seniority in the service is determined on the basis of the year of the competitive examination irrespective of the date of appointment and the inter-se seniority of candidates recruited to the service is determined on the basis of their ranking in the merit list." (Emphasis supplied). Petitioners have neither challenged the manner and method of selection or criterion adopted therein nor assailed the conditions stipulated in the appointment order for the purposes of determining the seniority. Petitioners have neither challenged the manner and method of selection or criterion adopted therein nor assailed the conditions stipulated in the appointment order for the purposes of determining the seniority. This seniority position remained operative for the last almost three decades. Petitioners as also the private respondents have been promoted to further higher posts on the basis of the seniority position as was notified vide Govt order dated 4-7-1979, which order has also been approved and up-held in writ petition No. 626/1987 vide judgment dated 31-3-1989 and approved by the LPA Bench vide its judgment dated 10-11-1990. The Apex Court in Bimlesh Tanwar v. State of Haryana, AIR 2003 SC 2000, has held that long settled seniority position should not be disturbed. What was held by the Apex Court is noticed here-under. "51. Furthermore, it is now well settled that a settled seniority position should not be unsettled. The respondents had already been posted to the post of Additional District Judge. As would appear from the report of the Sub-committee that the seniority list was published in the year 1992. Representations were, however, made only in the year 1997 which was rejected by the High Court on 22nd August, 1997. The writ petition was filed in March, 1998 which was dismissed by reason of the impugned judgment dated 18-8-1999." In view of the factual and legal position referred to above, I do not find any merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed.