Judgment S.N. Jha, J.-With consent of the Counsel for; the parties, this appeal was taken up for final hearing and is disposed of by this order. 2. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 012.2005 (Sic 12.2005) in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9636 of 2002 directing the respondents, the appellants herein, "to assign proper seniority to the petitioner from the date of initial appointment". 3. The dispute involved in the writ petition related to seniority and the respondent herein had filed the petition seeking direction upon the appellants to reckon his seniority from the date of appointment which is said to be 02.09.1986, and not from the date of confirmation. 4. It may be mentioned that Regulation 19 of the Rajasthan Financial Corporation (Staff ) Regulations, 1958, provides for seniority on the basis of confirmation. Without referring to the case law on the point it may be stated that a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Virendra Kumar Shah vs. C.R. Chaudhary & Ors., vide Judgment dated 011.2001, held that main part of Regulation 19 of the Regulations providing for determination of seniority on the basis of confirmation is ultra vires, and struck down the same. While declaring the relevant part of Regulation 19 ultra vires, the Division Bench for reasons mentioned in the Judgment protected the promotions already made and action taken on the basis of seniority prepared in accordance with Regulation 19 in the past. It would be useful to refer to the observation of the Division Bench as under: "All promotions made or any action taken by the Respondent Corporation on the basis of seniority list prepared as per Regulation 19 of the Regulations prior to the date of this Judgment will not be affected by Regulation 19 being declared unconstitutional". (emphasis supplied). 5. In other words, declaring the relevant part of Regulation 19 as unconstitutional was not to affect any promotion or action taken by the appellant-Corporation on the basis of seniority determined in accordance with Regulation 19. We are of the view that the aforequoted observation fully protects the interest of persons who had already been given promotions, as well as action taken by the appellant-Corporation in that regard. We are of the view that the aforequoted observation fully protects the interest of persons who had already been given promotions, as well as action taken by the appellant-Corporation in that regard. Considered in that perspective, the direction of the learned Single Judge in the instant writ petition to fix the seniority of the writ petitioner from the date of initial appointment does not appear to be erroneous so as to warrant interference. We are of the view that the order of the learned Single Judge is in accord with the decisions of the Supreme Court; reference may be made to the case of The Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers Association & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 1990 (2) SCC 715 . 6. The appeal stands disposed of with the above observations.