( 1 ) THE petitioner has invoked Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution to challenge the order dated 07. 01. 2009 of respondent No. 1 by which his representation regarding his seniority is rejected. It is the case of the petitioner that, after joining the service of respondent No. 1 as Work Assistant on 09. 06. 1997, the petitioner applied for selection on the post of Additional Assistant Engineer (Civil) and he was duly selected for appointment on that post on 15. 10. 1998. Since the authorities were considering respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 as seniors to the petitioner in the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer, he had approached this Court by filing a petition, which was disposed by order dated 26. 10. 2007 without expressing any opinion on merits, in view of pendency of the representation of the petitioner. That representation is decided by the impugned order dated 07. 01. 2009 and the petitioner is before this Court upon being aggrieved thereby. Respondent No. 1 Corporation has reaffirmed its stand that respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 were seniors to the petitioner. ( 2 ) THERE is no dispute about the fact that respondent No. 4 is selected and appointed as Additional Assistant Engineer after the petitioner and respondent No. 3 has as yet not undergone any process of selection for regular appointment on the post. As for respondent No. 2, it is averred in the petition, and not controverted by any affidavit-in-reply, that respondent No. 2 was below the petitioner in the merit list and his name was shown at serial No. 6 below the name of the petitioner at serial No. 2 in the appointment order, which is annexed as Annexure-E to the petition. Faced with that situation, it was argued by learned counsel Ms. Asmita Patel, appearing for respondent No. 1, that respondent No. 2 was placed above the petitioner in the seniority list only on the basis that he was older in age; and in absence of any rule or resolution of the respondent in respect of the subject-matter, the decision of the respondent cannot be disturbed. Learned counsel Ms. Asmita Patel, appearing for respondent No. 1, that respondent No. 2 was placed above the petitioner in the seniority list only on the basis that he was older in age; and in absence of any rule or resolution of the respondent in respect of the subject-matter, the decision of the respondent cannot be disturbed. Learned counsel Ms. Patel only relied upon judgment of the Supreme Court in Sudama Singh v. Nath Saran Singh [ (1988) 1 SCC 57 ], which has no application in the facts of the present case, in absence of any express rule, as was the case in the matter before the Supreme Court. It was, however, submitted by learned counsel Mr. Upadhyay that, in the admitted absence of any rule in that regard, persons appointed on the post on the same date have to be granted seniority according to their merit and the petitioner having been higher up in merit and in the appointment order, he had to be accorded a higher position in the seniority list. Learned counsel Mr. Upadhyay relied upon the resolution dated 31. 3. 1989 of General Administration Department of the State Government to fortify his argument that the State Government was following the aforesaid rule by codifying its policy embodied in the said resolution. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel Mr. H. B. Raval was heard for respondent No. 4 and he could not show any valid reason for granting advanced date of appointment for the purpose of seniority to respondent No. 4. ( 4 ) IN the above facts and circumstances and in absence of any controversy about the petitioner being above the respondent in the order of merits, it appears to be illogical and unreasonable that age of the other appointees should be brought into consideration for fixing seniority of officers appointed on the same day. It may be that among the persons of equal merit appointed on the same day, the age factor may be pressed into service for fixing seniority but when an officer is scoring a higher position on merits, he cannot be denied seniority by bringing in the factor of age of another officer. Therefore, the impugned order of respondent Corporation is found and held to be irrational and unreasonable, and hence it is set aside. Therefore, the impugned order of respondent Corporation is found and held to be irrational and unreasonable, and hence it is set aside. As for the claim of seniority of respondents No. 3 and 4, it is noticed that respondent No. 3 has not cared to even appear before this Court and in view of the uncontroverted averments in respect of his entry into service, he cannot claim seniority above any other officers in the same cadre, much less above the petitioner. Respondent No. 4 is admittedly selected and appointed in the year 1999 and the order regularizing his service to bridge the gap of two days cannot advance his date of regular appointment after the selection process. Therefore, he also cannot claim a position higher than the petitioner in the seniority list in the cadre of Additional Assistant Engineer. Accordingly, the petition is partly allowed, impugned order dated 07. 01. 2009 is set aside and respondent No. 1 corporation is directed to fix seniority of the petitioner so as to show him senior to the other respondents. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. It is clarified that the impugned orders dated 11. 10. 2001 and 25. 3. 2003 in respect of services of respondents No. 3 and 4 shall stand set aside to the aforesaid extent.