JUDGMENT A.K. Shrivastava, J. 1. Order dated 14/11/2007 passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court allowing Writ Petition No. 5768/06 (s) filed by the writ petitioner, who has been arrayed as respondent No. 1 in this writ appeal, has been assailed by the appellant by preferring this writ appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaya Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005. By the impugned order, the learned Writ Court has directed respondent No. 2 to place the writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 above the appellant holding him to be senior. 2. The respondent No. 1/writ petitioner filed Original Application before the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal challenging his placement after the appellant which was registered as O.A.752/95. The Learned Tribunal, on the basis of the return of the State Government, allowed the said Original Application by directing the State Government to place him above the appellant and for providing all the consequential benefits. This Order of the learned Tribunal was assailed by the appellant by filing a writ petition before this Court (WP No. 2061/97). The Division Bench allowed the said writ petition vide order dated 24/2/2000 and quashed the order of the learned Tribunal and remitted the matter to the learned Tribunal to re-decide the case by paying heed in respect to the point of limitation, since the Original Application was filed after more than one decade. However, the matter could not be decided by the learned Tribunal and, in the meantime, the Tribunal was abolished and the Original Application was received by this Court and was registered as Writ Petition No. 3466/03. Said writ petition was dismissed as having been rendered infructuous vide order dated 25/8/2005 in view of the promotion order dated 31/8/2004 issued in favour of respondent No. 1/writ petitioner. Hence, it has been contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the position which stood in the year 1981 (when the first gradation list was published) has been restored in which the appellant was shown to be senior to that of respondent No. 1/writ petitioner and this status continued for years together and therefore, after the lapse of more than two decades, it cannot now be changed by holding respondent No. 1/writ petitioner to be senior to that of appellant. 3. 3. Further the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that if the regularisation order dated 28/2/1978 (Annexure R-5/4) of the appellant is considered in its stricto sensu, since services of the appellant were regularised, the clog which was initially put on his service career when he was appointed as an ad hoc employee against the post of scheduled caste and scheduled tribe candidates, has been removed, and if that would be the position, in view of Rule 12 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (General Conditions of Services) Rules, 1961, (herein after, referred to as "1961 Rules"), for no rhyme or reason, the appellant can be treated as a junior employee to that of respondent/writ petitioner. 4. Lastly, it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the appellant had already retired and if this appeal is allowed, only a notional promotion on the post of Professor may be given to him and, therefore, the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner will not be prejudiced, in any manner. 5. On the other hand, Shri Brijesh Sharma and Shri Nitin Agrawal, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1/writ petitioner argued in support of the impugned judgment and have submitted that undisputedly respondent No. 1/writ petitioner was appointed as a lecturer on the regular basis while the appellant was appointed on ad hoc basis against the post of scheduled caste and scheduled tribe candidate and this has also been so mentioned in the appointment letter of the appellant and if that would be the position, the learned Writ Court has rightly interpreted Sub-rule (4) of Rule 12 of 1961 Rules by placing respondent No. 1/writ petitioner over the appellant in the gradation list. Learned Counsel further submitted that in order to take advantage of Clause (b) to Sub-rule (4) of Rule 12 of 1961 Rules, it has to be satisfied by the appellant that his services were regularised in accordance with the rules. Since there is nothing on record that under which rules, services of the appellant were regularised, therefore, he cannot be kept above respondent No. 1/writ petitioner in the seniority list. Hence, it has been prayed that this appeal be dismissed. 6. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that this appeal deserves to be allowed. 7. Hence, it has been prayed that this appeal be dismissed. 6. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that this appeal deserves to be allowed. 7. Appellant and respondent No. 1/writ petitioner, both were appointed as Demonstrators vide order dated 27/7/1972. Thereafter, the Public Service Commission issued an advertisement with regard to appointment on the post of Lecturer in Ayurvedic College, in the month of April, 1974. Appellant as well as respondent No. 1, both applied for their recruitment on the post of Lecturer. Appellant applied for the post of Lecturer in Ras Shastra (Medicine) while respondent No. 1/writ petitioner applied for the post of Lecturer in Shakalya Shalakya (Surgery). According to the appellant, he was also selected by the Public Service Commission and was placed in the waiting list at serial number 2. Copy of the list was filed as Annexure R-5/2 in the writ Court by the appellant. Undisputedly, appellant and respondent No. 1 were appointed as Lecturers vide order dated 15/9/1975. Admittedly, vide appointment letter (Annexure P/5), respondent No. 1 was appointed as Lecturer in Shakalya Shalakya (Surgery) while the appellant was appointed as Lecturer in Ras Shastra (Medicine), although, it has been mentioned in the order of appointment of the appellant that he is appointed on ad hoc basis up to the period till any of the candidate of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes is not appointed. Thereafter, services of the appellant were regularised on the post of Lecturer Ras Shastra (Medicine) vide order dated 28/2/1978. These facts are no more in dispute and the learned Counsel for the parties also do not dispute these facts. Hence, it is not in dispute that before the publication of the gradation list of the Lecturers, the services of the appellant were already regularised. 8. A gradation list of Lecturers was published long back in the year 1981 (viz. after the regularisation of the services of appellant) and in the aforesaid gradation list, the appellant was placed at serial number 50 and respondent No. 1/writ petitioner was placed at serial number 54. Admittedly, the respondent No. 1 did not challenge his placement below the appellant after the publication of the said list. Thereafter, again on 1/4/1994 viz. after the regularisation of the services of appellant) and in the aforesaid gradation list, the appellant was placed at serial number 50 and respondent No. 1/writ petitioner was placed at serial number 54. Admittedly, the respondent No. 1 did not challenge his placement below the appellant after the publication of the said list. Thereafter, again on 1/4/1994 viz. after 13 years of publication of the first gradation list in the year 1981, another list was published and in that list also, the appellant was shown senior to that of respondent No. 1, as his name finds place at serial number 16, while the name of respondent No. 1/writ petitioner finds place at serial number 18. This is also not disputed by the learned Counsel for the parties. 9. Further, it is also not in dispute that vide order dated 15/11/1996, the appellant as well as respondent No. 1 were promoted to the post of Reader and in the gradation list of the Reader also, the appellant was shown senior to that of respondent No. 1, as appellant was placed at serial number 13 while respondent No. 1/writ petitioner was shown at serial number 15. 10. Above said position is undisputed. Hence, right from the year 1981 to 1994, i.e., for a period of 13 years, the appellant was shown senior to that of respondent No. 1/writ petitioner in the gradation list of the post of Lecturer, and thereafter also, he was shown senior in the cadre of Reader. 11. The controversy arose thereafter because in the meantime, respondent No. 1/writ petitioner filed one original application before the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal for his placement above the appellant in the gradation list of the Lecturers, which was registered as OA 752/95, the learned Tribunal on the basis of the return of the State Government admitting wrong placement of the writ petitioner in the gradation list, allowed the Original Application on 15/2/1997 directing the State Government to correct the error in the gradation list which was published in the year 1981 and also directed that the subsequent gradation list be also corrected by placing the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner above the appellant, and further directed to provide all the consequential benefits to him. This order of the learned Tribunal was challenged by the present appellant by filing a writ petition (Writ Petition No. 2061/97) before this Court. This order of the learned Tribunal was challenged by the present appellant by filing a writ petition (Writ Petition No. 2061/97) before this Court. The Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 24/2/2000 while setting aside the order of the learned Tribunal held that the learned Tribunal ignored to considered the pleas including the question of limitation raised before it by the petitioner (appellant in this appeal) which the Tribunal was bound to consider and, hence, by quashing its order remitted the matter back to the learned Tribunal to consider the objection made by the petitioner (appellant in this appeal). We would like to quote that portion of the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 24/2/2000 which has been annexed as Annexure P/2 in the writ court, and which reads thus: The Tribunal ignored to consider the pleas including the question of limitation raised before it by the petitioner. The Tribunal was bound to consider the questions so raised. In view of this, the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. It is accordingly quashed and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal to consider the submissions made by the petitioner in his return. 12. In the meantime, respondent No. 1/writ petitioner was also promoted on the post of Reader. After the case was remitted to the Tribunal and before the original application of respondent No. 1 (who was applicant before the Tribunal) could be decided, the Tribunal itself was abolished and the Original Application of respondent No. 1 was received by this Court and was registered as Writ Petition No. 3466/03. This petition was listed for hearing on 25/8/2005, but, it was dismissed as infructuous on account of the order dated 31/8/2004 passed in favour of respondent No. 1 by the State Government promoting him on the post of Reader. This petition was listed for hearing on 25/8/2005, but, it was dismissed as infructuous on account of the order dated 31/8/2004 passed in favour of respondent No. 1 by the State Government promoting him on the post of Reader. According to us, since the order of the learned Tribunal allowing the Original Application of respondent No. 1/writ petitioner and directing the State Government to correct the gradation list did not remain in existence, as the same was set aside by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2061/97, and before the matter could be finally decided the petition was dismissed as infructuous, hence, the position of 1981 again revived and which continued for a considerable long period, wherein, all the times, the appellant was shown senior to that of respondent No. 1 in the cadre of Lecturer and even thereafter when they were promoted on the post of Reader. 13. The dispute thereafter again arose when the gradation list showing the position as on 1/4/1997 as contained in Annexure P/10 in which name of the appellant was shown below the name of respondent No. 1/writ petitioner. In the said list, the name of respondent No. 1/writ petitioner was shown at serial number 28, while name of the appellant finds place at serial number 26. The appellant, thereafter, filed objections against the said gradation list. 14. The actual dispute arose after dismissal of earlier writ petition (WP 3466/2003) of respondent No. 1/writ petitioner on 25/8/2005 which was originally filed before the Tribunal. According to us, the inter se dispute of the seniority of appellant and respondent No. 1 was never decided and the gradation list of 1981 showing the appellant senior to that of respondent No. 1/writ petitioner was never set aside by any Court. Not only this, the subsequent gradation lists of later years showing the appellant senior to that of respondent No. 1/writ petitioner was also never set aside and it was never directed to be corrected by any Court directing respondent no1/writ petitioner to be treated as senior to that of appellant. Not only this, the subsequent gradation lists of later years showing the appellant senior to that of respondent No. 1/writ petitioner was also never set aside and it was never directed to be corrected by any Court directing respondent no1/writ petitioner to be treated as senior to that of appellant. But the department, thereafter, in the gradation list showed the appellant junior to that of respondent/writ petitioner, as a result of which, appellant submitted objections which were never decided, as a result of which, appellant filed writ petition (Writ Petition No. 383/05) and the same was disposed of vide order dated 7/2/2005 wherein this Court directed the department that before finalising the gradation list, the objections submitted by the petitioner (present appellant) may be taken note of and it was further directed that the gradation list be finalised after considering the objections of the appellant. Aforesaid order dated 7/2/2005 was placed on record as Annexure R-5/10 in the Writ Court. Thereafter, an order was issued by the Medical Education Department of the State of Madhya Pradesh on 22/7/2006 which was impugned as Annexure P/1 in the learned Writ Court holding the appellant to be senior to that of respondent No. 1/writ petitioner in the cadre of Reader, and by further holding that the name of the appellant be placed at serial number 27 while that of respondent No. 1/writ petitioner at serial number 28 in the gradation list, which according to us, would mean that the position showing the appellant to be senior to that respondent No. 1/writ petitioner right from very beginning was restored. 15. All the times, in the cadre of Lecturers the appellant was shown above respondent No. 1/writ petitioner in the gradation list. It be noted that by a common order dated 15/11/1996 (Annexure P/9) the appellant and respondent No. 1 they were promoted to the post of Reader and in the promotion order also, the name of the appellant was placed above respondent No. 1/writ petitioner, as his name was at serial number 13 while the name of respondent No. 1/writ petitioner was placed at serial number 15, and hence, in the cadre of Reader also, the appellant was shown senior to that of respondent No. 1/writ petitioner. Not only this, in the promotion order of appellant and respondent No. 1 on the post of Reader dated 15/11/1996 (Annexure P/9), a condition was imposed on respondent No. 1 that in pursuance of the order No. F/C-6-2/94/3 dated 30/6/1994, respondent No. 1 is promoted in the officiating capacity only with a further clause that if necessity would arise, his promotion may be cancelled and he may be directed to serve on his substantive post of Lecturer but, no such condition was ever imposed on the appellant. 16. At the costs of repetition, we may again mention here that after withdrawal of Writ Petition No. 3466/03 on 25/8/2005 which was originally filed before the Tribunal, the position of 1981 was restored and, therefore, now after lapse of more than 25 years the position cannot be changed by setting aside the order dated 22/7/2006 which was impugned as Annexure P/1 before the learned Writ Court. 17. We do not find any merit in the contention of the learned Counsel for respondent No. 1/writ petitioner that until and unless the appellant demonstrates that his services were validly regularised in terms of 1961 Rules, he cannot take benefit of Rule 12(4)(b) of 1961 Rules. It be seen that admittedly services of the appellant were regularised vide order of the State Government dated 28/12/1978 (Annexure R-5/4) (long back viz. 26 years before the passing of the impugned order Annexure P/1 dated 22/7/2006 by the department), and after the regularisation of his services, this order was never challenged by anybody. There is nothing on record that even the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner ever challenged the regularisation order of the appellant, although, he challenged the gradation list placing the appellant above him in the said list. Copy of the Original Application which was filed before the learned Tribunal is not on record, but on going through the order of remand dated 24/2/2000 passed by learned Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2061/97, it can be inferred that regularisation of the appellant was never challenged and, therefore, the regularisation which was made long back in the year 1978 vide order dated 28/2/1978 (Annexure R-5/4), now cannot be disturbed by holding that it was not in accordance with particular rule. 18. 18. Apart from what we have stated herein above, in the regularisation order dated 28/2/1978 (Annexure R-5/4), specifically, it has been mentioned that on account of nonavailability of suitable candidates from scheduled castes and scheduled tribes category, the services of appellant who was earlier selected by the Public Service Commission, as a general category candidate, is being regularised, and therefore, according to us, for all practical purposes, after a lapse of more than two decades, it cannot be said that the services of appellant was not regularised in accordance with law. 19. For the reasons stated herein above, we are of the view that respondent No. 1/writ petitioner is not entitled for the relief which he had claimed in his writ petition and his writ petition deserves to be dismissed. The impugned order passed by the learned Writ Court allowing his writ petition is, accordingly, set aside. This writ appeal is, accordingly, allowed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 5000/- (Rs. Five Thousand) if pre-certified.