Order 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Delay condoned. 3. Leave granted. 4. A panel of three candidates was recommended by the Selection Committee for the post of Assistant Economist/Junior Research Officer (Agricultural Economics), which is as under: “(1) Dr. Anil Kumar (2) Dr. Virendra Singh (3) Dr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava” 5. As per panel, Dr. Anil Kumar, being at No. 1, was appointed. The appellant herein, Dr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, made a representation to the Chancellor under Rule 23 of the Agriculture and Technology University Rules of Uttar Pradesh challenging the appointment of Dr. Anil Kumar, which was decided on 30.8.2001. The Chancellor came to the conclusion that the representation made by the appellant is liable to be accepted but since Dr. Anil Kumar, candidate at Serial No. 1 in the panel, had already taken over the charge, it may not be proper to cancel his appointment. At the same time, the University was directed to appoint the appellant on any other equivalent post. Resultantly, the appellant was appointed. 6. Writ Petition No. 139 (S/B) of 2002 was filed by Dr. Virendra Singh before the High Court, inter alia, alleging that candidates placed at Serial Nos. 1 and 3 had been appointed and he was left out though placed at Serial No. 2. By the impugned judgment dated 1.11.2002, Dr. Virendra Singh was appointed. We may note that the appellant herein was not a party before the High Court. On a review application having been filed by the appellant, the High Court, while declining to review the order dated 1.11.2002, directed that it would be open to the appellant to raise his grievance regarding seniority by filing a separate writ petition at a suitable stage. 7. From the impugned order dated 1.11.2002, it is evident that neither the appellant was the party nor the High Court considered the order dated 30.8.2001 which led to the appointment of the appellant. In this view, the High Court protected the appellant so that he could raise his grievance regarding seniority at an appropriate stage. It is contended that though the appellant was appointed pursuant to the order dated 30.8.2001, but, at a later stage, a controversy may arise when the question of seniority is raised that the appointment has been made in terms of the ranking in the panel wherein the appellant is placed at Serial No. 3. 8. It is contended that though the appellant was appointed pursuant to the order dated 30.8.2001, but, at a later stage, a controversy may arise when the question of seniority is raised that the appointment has been made in terms of the ranking in the panel wherein the appellant is placed at Serial No. 3. 8. As already noticed, the High Court did not go into the order of the Chancellor dated 30.8.2001 and for the additional reason that Dr. Anil Kumar is not a party in these proceedings, the question of seniority has to be left to be decided at an appropriate stage when the effect of the order dated 30.8.2001 can be agitated and gone into. We, however, make it clear that the merits or otherwise of the order dated 30.8.2001 will be examined in accordance with law without being influenced by the impugned order dated 1.11.2002. 9. The civil appeals are, accordingly, disposed of. 10. No costs. Appeals disposed of. ****************