JUDGMENT S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. The petitioners, who are Assistant Conservator of Forest, have preferred this writ petition against the order contained in Notification No. 1321, Ranchi, dated 23rd February, 2005 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition), whereby and where under, they have been posted as attached officers (Assistant Conservator of Forest). 2. According to petitioners the impugned order of posting has been issued by the Respondents with mala fide motive to ensure that the petitioners are not given the charge of the higher post of Divisional Forest Officers (hereinafter referred to as the D.F.O.) and to give benefit to others whose names are appearing in another notification No. 1320 dated 23rd February, 2005, who have been posted as D.F.Os. and have been given dual charge. 3. This Court by its order dated 7th March, 2005, allowed the petitioners to implead the persons named in the notification No. 1320 dated 23rd February, 2005 (Annexure 5/1 to the writ petition) and have been transferred in places of petitioners. Though, one year has passed since 7th March, 2005, but those persons have not been impleaded as party respondents nor any individual has been impleaded as party Respondents to the writ petition. Page 0820 4. Admittedly, the post of D.F.O. is a higher post in the "Indian Forest Service", whereas the substantive post of petitioners is Assistant Conservator of Forest, a post in the "State Forest Service". Certain percentages of the posts of D.F.O. of "Indian Forest Service" are filled up by direct recruitment and rests by promotion from amongst the members of "State Forest Service". 5. Admittedly, the petitioners have not been promoted to the post of D.F.O., and as such have no right to hold such post. 6. It appears that the persons whose names are appearing in the notification No. 1320 dated 23rd February, 2005 are Direct recruit Assistant Conservator of Forests. On the other hand, the petitioners are promotee Assistant Conservator of Forests. A seniority dispute took place between the direct recruits and promotees and the matter moved upto Supreme Court. In Civil Appeal No. 6565 of 1999 (Sanjay Kumar Sinha-II and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors.), the Supreme Court by its judgment dated 31st May, 2004, while set aside the final seniority list, declared the direct recruit Assistant Conservator of Forests as senior to the promotee Assistant Conservator of Forest. 7. In Civil Appeal No. 6565 of 1999 (Sanjay Kumar Sinha-II and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors.), the Supreme Court by its judgment dated 31st May, 2004, while set aside the final seniority list, declared the direct recruit Assistant Conservator of Forests as senior to the promotee Assistant Conservator of Forest. 7. After the aforesaid judgment, the State of Jharkhand has published a provisional seniority list of Assistant Conservator of Forest in terms with the decision of Supreme Court and circulated by letter No. 5043 dated 30th November, 2004 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition). The petitioners, who are promotee Assistant Conservator of Forest, have been shown junior to 25 (twenty five) direct recruits whose names are appearing in Notification No. 1320 dated 23rd February, 2005. 8. In view of the aforesaid decision of Supreme Court, now the petitioners have to make room for the seniors. For accommodating the seniors against higher post, if notification is issued posting the petitioners against their substantive post, it cannot be held to be illegal. 9. It has already been mentioned that the petitioners have no right to hold the charge of the higher post of D.F.O. Though they were allowed to implead the persons named in Memo No. 1320 dated 23rd February, 2005, as party Respondents to the writ petition, even after one year, they have not been impleaded as party Respondents. Further, the notification No. 1320 dated 23rd February, 2005 by which others have been given the charge of the post of D.F.O. having not been challenged in the writ petition or by filing any petition for amendment of prayer, no relief can be granted against those who have been posted to the post of D.F.O. 10. A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed by Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 showing therein the sources from which forty posts of D.F.O. have been filled up. Eleven posts have been filled up by posting of Indian Forest Service officers; 23 (twenty three) posts by posting senior most Assistant Conservator of Forests; 4 (four) posts are in the dual charge of I.F.S. Officers; and two posts are in the dual charge of the senior most Assistant Conservator of Forest. 11. In the present case, as no discrimination has been made by Respondents on the ground of source of recruitment, the petitioners cannot derive advantage out of the Supreme Court decision in Kamlakar and Ors. 11. In the present case, as no discrimination has been made by Respondents on the ground of source of recruitment, the petitioners cannot derive advantage out of the Supreme Court decision in Kamlakar and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. as relied by their counsel. There being no merit, the writ petition is dismissed.