Judgment :- Heard the counsel for the parties. 2. The facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner, an Assistant Professor in Surgical Oncology has challenged the final seniority list pertaining to Assistant Professors and Lecturers – vis-a-vis his ranking as against that of the second respondent. It is the petitioner’s case that the second respondent and he were appointed by an order dated 10.03.2000, as against applications invited by the Kidwai Memorial Institute of Oncology dated 05.05.1994 and 12.01.1996. The second respondent had joined service on 10.03.2000 whereas the petitioner had joined service on 13.03.2000. Their respective appointments were on the basis of selection. The petitioner had scored 28 marks and the second respondent had scored 36 marks at the interview by the Selection Committee concerned. The Institute had published a Provisional Gradation List of Assistant Professors and Lecturers dated 08.04.2005. The petitioner was shown at Serial No.10 and the second respondent was shown at Serial No.11 in the said list. However, in a Final Seniority List prepared as on 08.06.2007, the petitioner’s name finds place below that of the second respondent in order of seniority. It is this that is sought to be questioned by the petitioner in this writ petition. 3. The Counsel for the petitioner raises the following contentions: The seniority of the petitioner over the second respondent cannot be denied on any ground. It cannot be denied on the ground that the petitioner has joined duty (13.3.2000) three days after the second respondent (10.03.2000). For the reason that the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 are applicable to the appointments in terms of Rules 18 thereto, seniority cannot be applied to candidates inter-se if they joined duty within 15 days from the date of appointment, in the instant case, 10.03.2000. It is contended that the seniority of the petitioner having been correctly indicated in the provisional gradation list – the ranking could not be altered unilaterally at the instance of the Chairman of the Governing Council of the Institute which is a position held. Ex-officio, by the Minister for Medical Education of the State Government of Karnataka. It is contended that the seniority of the petitioner having been correctly indicated in the provisional gradation list – the ranking could not be altered unilaterally at the instance of the Chairman of the Governing Council of the Institute which is a position held. Ex-officio, by the Minister for Medical Education of the State Government of Karnataka. It is pointed out that it is provided under the Kidwai Memorial Institute of Oncology Bye-laws 1980, viz, Bye-law No.20(1) that the Chief Administrative Officer ‘shall prepare and maintain in respect of each category of posts a complete and upto date seniority list.” And under the Kidwai Memorial Institute of Oncology (Pay, Recruitment, Conditions of Service And Miscellaneous Provisions) Rules, 1981, Annexure -2 thereof at Rule 1, it is provided that the Director shall prepare and publish a seniority list of all the staff members of the Institute, both intra and inter departmental, in accordance with the provisions of the Seniority rules of the State Government of Sub-rules to be framed by the Governing Council from time to time. In any event, the chairman of the Governing Council, in his individual capacity had no role to play in the alteration of the Gradation list. It is contended that Reservation of appointment by way of direct recruitment, is provided as per the roster maintained by the Government and at a percentage prescribed by the Government for candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes. The petitioner belongs to a Scheduled Caste and in terms of the roster, maintained by the State Governments as on 03.05.1994, the first point in the roster was to be given to a Scheduled Caste candidate and hence the petitioner would be first in the seniority list insofar as the three posts in the cadre of Lecturers and Assistant Professors are concerned. This has been diligently followed in respect of all Departments as is apparent from a plain perusal of the list. It is contended that the law as settled by the Supreme Court also lays down that ranking in the seniority list could not be altered without affording an opportunity of hearing to the concerned candidate as laid down in Union of India vs. P.K. Roy AIR 1968 SC 850 . It is contended that the law as settled by the Supreme Court also lays down that ranking in the seniority list could not be altered without affording an opportunity of hearing to the concerned candidate as laid down in Union of India vs. P.K. Roy AIR 1968 SC 850 . It is contended that the petitioner has obtained a copy of the note put up by the Minister for Medical Education, acting as Chairman of the Governing Council, directing that the second respondent be placed above the petitioner in the seniority list. This the petitioner had obtained by invoking the provisions of the Right to Information Act. It is contended that the unilateral decision of the Chairman of the council has been ratified, by the council as a body at its meeting dated 04.07.2007. There could be no such post-facto approval of any unilateral decision of the Chairman of the Council. The decision is void ab-initio and could not be legitimized by a latent consensus of the Council. Such an exercise negates the express power conferred on the Council which is required to act as a body – reliance is placed on the decision in Marathawada University vs. Sehrao Balwant Rao Chavan, (1989) 3 SCC 132 and Krishna Kumar vs. Divisional Assistant Electrical Engineer, (1979) 4 SCC 289 , in this regard. 4. It is contended that the Rules for determination of seniority of the petitioner vis-à-vis the second respondent are as follows: a) Rule 1 of Annexure-2 to the Kidwai Memorial Institute of Oncology (Pay, Recruitment, Conditions of Service And Miscellaneous Provisions) Rules, 1981, which provides that the Director shall prepare and publish the seniority list as per the seniority rules of the State Government or Rules framed by the Governing Council. b) Below 20(2) of the Bye-laws of the Institute which provides that seniority of Employees in each category shall be determined by order of merit in which they were selected for appointment to the grade in question Bye-law 20(4) provides that in case of any dispute, the matter shall be referred to the Governing council whose decision shall be final. b) Below 20(2) of the Bye-laws of the Institute which provides that seniority of Employees in each category shall be determined by order of merit in which they were selected for appointment to the grade in question Bye-law 20(4) provides that in case of any dispute, the matter shall be referred to the Governing council whose decision shall be final. c) Rule 4 in Annexure-1 of the Kidwai Memorial Institute of Oncology (Pay, Recruitment, Conditions of Service And Miscellaneous Provisions) Rules, 1981, which provides that the appointing authority shall make provisions for Reservation at 15 and 3 percent, of the posts at all levels of Direct Recruitment, for candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. d) Rules 5(1)(b) of the Karnataka Government servants (Seniority) Rules, 1957, provides that the order of seniority shall be determined by the order in which the candidates are arranged in the select list. e) Rule 18 of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules 1977, provides that a person who reports to duty within 15 days from the date of order of appointment, is entitled to count his seniority from the date of his appointment. In the above background respondent No.1 having published another Gradation list of Assistant Professors on 22.01.2009 updating the Gradation List under Rule 10 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Seniority) Rules 1957, wherein the ranking of the petitioner is again shown below that of respondent No.2 though made subject to the result of the petition, the same is also sought to be questioned on the very grounds. The Counsel for the petitioner hence seeks that the petition be allowed as prayed for. 5. Per contra, the Counsel for respondent No.1 contends that the entire basis for the petitioner’s claim to seniority vis-à-vis the second respondent is that in the notification dated 10.03.2000 at Annexure-B to the petition, his name is shown above that of the second respondent. It is pointed out that no specific ranking is assigned to any one in the list. However, on 08.04.2005, the provisional seniority list of Lecturers / Assistant Professors was published by the Institute wherein the petitioner was placed at serial No.10 and respondent No.2 was placed at serial No.11. It is pointed out that no specific ranking is assigned to any one in the list. However, on 08.04.2005, the provisional seniority list of Lecturers / Assistant Professors was published by the Institute wherein the petitioner was placed at serial No.10 and respondent No.2 was placed at serial No.11. The second respondent had filed objections, bringing it to the attention of the Institute that the list was not prepared in accordance with Bye-Law 20(2) of the Institute – in that, the second respondent having been placed higher in the order of the merit at the time of selection – he ought to be placed higher in the seniority list than the petitioner. Consequent upon a reconsideration in the light of the objection raised, it was found that at the selection made by way of interview – the petitioner had scored 28 marks and the second respondent had scored 38 marks and the second respondent was first in order of merit the Selection Committee had indeed specifically stated that the second respondent was selected at No.1. Hence, the Institute has corrected its mistake, that was an apparent error, by issuing the final seniority list, while placing second respondent above the petitioner. This is in accordance with the Bye-laws. The allegation that the above correction, which is sought to be termed an illegality, was at the behest of the Minister for Health Education, is denied, It is asserted that the seniority list was prepared by the Chief Administrator Officer and placed before the Director of the Institute, which was thereafter placed before the Governing Council, which was ultimately approved the same. 6. The contentions of the petitioner that in terms of the Reservations Roster required to be followed, the petitioner was to be given the first point and the third point to a General Merit candidate, is strongly disputed. It is pointed out that the selection of the petitioner and others was not the first selection process initiated for filling up the posts of Lecturer in Surgery in the Institute, in order to contend that the first point as per the Reservation Roster should be given to a Scheduled Caste candidate, even as per the notification inviting applications to the posts, three posts were notified indicating one post being reserved for Scheduled Casts category and the other 2 to be filled up by the general merit candidates. The notifications did not however, indicate that the first post is reserved under Scheduled Casts category. The respondent has produced Annexure-R-2, which is a list of candidates selected to the said post from inception till the latest recruitment to emphasize the objection. Reliance is placed on several authorities by the Counsel for the respondent No.2 in support of its case namely: Bimlesh Tanwar vs. State of Haryana And Others – (2003) 5 SCC 604 , Sudama Singh vs. Nath Saran Singh and Others – AIR 1988 SC 84 , Karama Pal vs. Union of India and Ram Sarup Kanwar vs. Union of India – AIR 1985 SC 774 . Shri. K. Kasturi, Senior Advocate appearing for the counsel for respondent would urge identical objections to the petition and would support the contentions of the first respondent counsel, in seeking dismissal of the petition. 7. By way of reply the counsel for the petitioner contends that the selection list clearly ranked the petitioner on top, as a Scheduled Caste candidate. Reservation is to be followed in terms of Rule 4 the Kidwai Memorial Institute of Oncology (Pay, Recruitment, Conditions of Service And Miscellaneous Provisions) Rules, 1981. Applying the percentage of reservation provided, the petitioner stands first in the selection list. Apart from this the Kidwai Memorial Institute of Oncology Bye-laws 1980, Bye-law No-11 sub-clause (4) in particular makes the percentage of reservation by the State Government for candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes and backward classes in the matter of regular appointment to the post. The Government has passed an executive order dated 15.11.1994 under Article 16 of the Constitution of India applying the roster. Therefore, it is not merely the marks obtained at the selection that would decided seniority as the petitioner and the respondent do not belong to the same category. It is emphasized and reasserted that the then Minister for Medical Education who has actively intervened in the preparation of the gradation list and is evident from his note produced as Annexure-J to the petition. 8. In the light of the above contentions the questions that arise for consideration would be: .(a) Whether the petitioner (Scheduled Caste) is to be ranked senior to the second respondent (General Merit) having regard to the roster maintained by the Government of Karnataka for Direct Recruitment to posts. 8. In the light of the above contentions the questions that arise for consideration would be: .(a) Whether the petitioner (Scheduled Caste) is to be ranked senior to the second respondent (General Merit) having regard to the roster maintained by the Government of Karnataka for Direct Recruitment to posts. .(b) Whether the petitioner, shown at serial No.10 in the provisional Gradation list and the second respondent shown at serial No.11 could not be assigned a lesser rank in the final Gradation list? .(c) Whether chairman of the Governing Council had unilaterally recommended the case of the second respondent for being above the petitioner? And therefore is bad in law? .(d) Whether the petitioner ought to have been afforded a right of hearing before this ranking, in the provisional Gradation List, stood altered? It is necessary to take stock of the legal Principles evolved in addressing the petitioners contentions as regards the application of the 100 point roster that has been adopted by the State Government of Karnataka for purposes of providing reservation to the backward classes, in direct recruitment to civil posts. The roster maintained by the State Government, is produced at Annexure-H (See. Rejoinder of the petitioner dated 16.11.2007). In the instant case, there being three posts in the cadre of Lecturer /Assistant Professors in surgery. One post being reserved for a Scheduled Caste candidate. Assuming that he roster was being operated for the first time, the first point in the roster is reserved for a Scheduled Caste candidate. The petitioner being a Scheduled Caste candidate – it would follow that appointments would be made by the selecting authority from out of the select list (-which would necessarily be on the basis of merit-). But appointment orders will not be issued in the order in which candidates are arranged in the select list but will be issued following the roster and accordingly in the case on hand, even though the petitioner had scored less marks than the second respondent is accordingly shown on top of the list of the three appointed candidates as the first post is reserved for a Scheduled Caste candidate. It is such appointment that was to be ensured under the roster and the reservation policy envisaged. It is such appointment that was to be ensured under the roster and the reservation policy envisaged. But once appointed he is not in a position to claim seniority over a general merit candidate who is simultaneously appointed to the next vacancy in the cadre, who prevails over the petitioner in order of merit. This rule which is explained by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Virpol Singh Chauhan (1995) 6 SCC 684 (Paragraph 26) was been followed in Ajit Singh (II) vs. State of Punjab (1999) 7 SCC 209 and further affirmed by M. Nagarj vs. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 212 and Ashok Kumar Thekar vs. Union of India (2008) 6 SCC 1 . In the light of the above, the second respondent who has also been appointed to one of the three posts being ranked above the petitioner in order of seniority on the basis of merit, is in consonance with the settled legal position. 9. In fact the General Bye-laws of the Institute, Governing the parties – Annexure-C at Bye-Law No.20, which provides for determination of seniority also is in line with this position: “20(2) Seniority of Employees in each category shall be determined in the order of merit in which they were selected for appointment to the grade in question. Those selected on or earlier occasion being ranked senior to those selected later” xxxx and “(3)(iv) If two members join on the same day in the same position, the older one shall be the senior.” The second respondent is seen to be older (20.02.1963) than the petitioner (03.01.1965) hence both on the ground of merit and age, the second respondent is senior in rank to the petitioner. In the light of the above, the second, respondent having raised objection to the ranking assigned to him in the provisional Gradation List, as seen from Annexure-J the said objection has been placed before the Minister for Health Education for Suitable directions. The Minister has initially opined that the matter was pending before a Division Bench of the High Court and postponed any decision till after the final decision of the pending matter. Thereafter there have been further discussions between the Minister and the Director of the Institute and a revised proposal is directed to be put up by the Minister. The Minister has initially opined that the matter was pending before a Division Bench of the High Court and postponed any decision till after the final decision of the pending matter. Thereafter there have been further discussions between the Minister and the Director of the Institute and a revised proposal is directed to be put up by the Minister. It is pursuant to the same that the final seniority list has been prepared altering the ranking of the petitioner below respondent No.2 in the order of seniority. Though the Counsel for the petitioner has sought to be demonstrate that the process by which the Institute has prepared the final gradation list in an irregular manner – there is no irregularity of a nature which would warrant interference of this Court, especially when the action of the respondents has not resulted in any illegality or error. 10. Insofar as the grievance of the petitioner that the ought to have been afforded a hearing before his position in the provisional Gradation List was sought to be disturbed is concerned, reliance is placed on the decision of P.K. Roy (supra). But in the very judgment it is held that what is contemplated in the usual course is that there is always one opportunity for making a representation against the provisional gradation list, which is sufficient to satisfy the requirement of law. But has also held that the extent and application of the doctrine of natural justice cannot be imprisoned within the strait-jacket of rigid formula. The application of the doctrine depends upon the nature of jurisdiction conferred on the administrative authority, upon the character of rights of the person affected, the scheme and policy of the statute and other relevant circumstance disclosed in the particular case. The petitioner in the instant case on hand has not demonstrated any such circumstances which required the petitioner to be heard, on the other hand, an error committed has been rectified by the respondent Institute. The points raised for consideration are answered as above. Hence, it is to be held that the petitioner has not made out a case on any of the grounds urged. The petition stands dismissed.