JUDGMENT Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. An advertisement was published by the District Basic Education Officer, Mathura in January, 2004 for admission to Special Basic Training Course-2004. The petitioners, who at the relevant point of time, were resident of Tehsil Sadabad, Dagsah, Baramai, and Sikhra which formed part of District Mathura, applied in pursuance thereof. Petitioners were selected and as per select list dated 24/26th July, 2004 they were required to undergo training of Basic Training Course at District Institute of Education and Training, Mathura. After the petitioners completed their training at the Institute at Mathura, they were appointed under letter dated 27th December, 2005 and were placed in Parishidiya Vidyalayas as Assistant Teachers within the district of Mathura to be precise, petitioner Nos. 1, 4, 5 and 6 were appointed in the institutions at Block Mant, Mathura, petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 were appointed in the institutions at Block Naujheel, Mathura and petitioner Nos. 7 and 8 were placed in the institution of Block Raya, Mathura. It appears that after the petitioners had joined at their place of posting, certain orders were issued attaching them to the primary institution situate in Block/Tehsil Sadabad. 3. In order to keep the record straight, it may be stated that a new District “Mahamaya Nagar” was created under the notification dated 6th May, 1997, wherein two Blocks/Tehsils of District Mathura were carved out to form the new District Mahamaya Nagar. Subsequently on 13th January, 2004 the State Government withdrew the notification dated 6th May, 1997. This subsequent notification dated 13th January, 2004 was subjected to challenge before this Court by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2443 of 2004 (Rakesh Kumar Sharma and others v. State of U.P. and others) which was allowed under the judgment and order dated 21st May, 2004, 2004 (3) AWC 2234. What logically follows from the judgment and order dated 21st May, 2004 is that both the Tehsils Sahpau and Sadabad continue became part and partial of newly created District Mahamaya Nagar. 4. However, the Tehsil, where the petitioners were appointed after completing their training still continues to be part and partial of District Mathura. What logically follows from the judgment and order dated 21st May, 2004 is that both the Tehsils Sahpau and Sadabad continue became part and partial of newly created District Mahamaya Nagar. 4. However, the Tehsil, where the petitioners were appointed after completing their training still continues to be part and partial of District Mathura. It appears that during the interregnum, when the notification dated 13th January, 2004 was in force, certain orders were issued for attachment of the petitioners in the institution situate in Tehsil Sadabad and it is on the basis of such attachment orders that the petitioners have come up before this Court with a prayer that their names should be included int he seniority list of teachers of Parshidiya Vidyalayas working in District Mahamaya Nagar, as according to the petitioner, the institutions where they have been attached in Tehsil Sadabad, which is part and partial of District Mahamaya Nagar. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present writ petition. 6. The seniority of teachers working in Parshidiya Vidyalayas is regulated by the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 (herein after referred to as the “Rules, 1981”). Seniority of teachers is to be determined district-wise, reference Rule 22 of Rules, 1981. It is apparently clear that names of teachers working in one District cannot be included in the seniority list of another district. Reference may also be had to Rule 21 of Rules, 1981, which permits inter-district transfer of teacher working in Parshidiya Vidalaya and consequences which follow therefrom. 7. In the facts of the case as noticed herein above, I am of the considered opinion that since the petitioners were appointed on substantive basis in the institutions, which are situate in Tehsils Mant, Naujheel and Raya of District Mathura, even after creation of new District Mahamaya Nagar, and merely because the petitioners had been attached to the institutions situate in Tehsil Sadabad, which is now part and partial of District Mahamaya Nagar, it will not mean that the petitioners become the teachers of District Mahamaya Nagar. As a matter of fact, after the notification dated 13th January, 2004 was quashed by this Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar Sharma (Supra), the District Basic Education Officer should have issued orders relieving the petitioners for joining in the parent institution, where they had been appointed, inasmuch as continuance of the petitioners under an order of attachment in any other district would violate Rule 21 of Rules, 1981, which permits inter-district transfer only. 8. In view of the aforesaid, this Court records that seniority of the petitioners has to be determined with reference to their working in District Mathura only, inasmuch as their substantive appointment is in institutions situate in District Mathura. The attachment orders which have been continuing after creation of different District Mahamaya Nagar will not confer any right upon the petitioners to claim that they are teachers of District Mahamaya Nagar. The District Basic Education Officer, Mathura may take all necessary action in light of the observations made above. 9. The present writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. ————