JUDGMENT Iqbal Ahmed Ansari, J. 1. By this common judgment and order, I propose to dispose of both these writ petitions inasmuch as these writ petitions involve many undisputed common facts, which the contesting parties rely upon, and the questions of law, raised in the two writ petitions, are substantially common in nature and, further, on the request of the learned Counsel for the parties concerned, both the writ petitions have been heard together, because the decision, in any of the two writ petitions, would have a bearing on the outcome of the other writ petition. BACKGROUND FACTS 2. Pursuant to a Combined Administrative Examination, conducted by the Assam Public Service Commission (in short, APSC), for filling up the posts of Class-I and Class-II ACS officers, a select list was published on 26-07-1983. The ACS Class-II posts include, amongst others, Deputy Superintendent of Police (in short, DSP) and District Transport Officer (in short, DTO). The merit position of the contesting parties were as under:- Bipulananda Pathak (Petitioner in WP (C) No. 7864 of 2003) was placed at Sl. No. 26, JC Handique at Sl. No. 46 (Respondent No. 3 in WP (C) No. 7864 of 2003 and Respondent No. 4 in WP (C) No. 5666 of 2000) and Kushal Chandra Hazarika (Petitioner in WP (C) No. 5666 of 2000) at Sl. No. 176. Thus, in terms of the merit position, Bipulananda Pathak was ahead of JC Handique, which was followed by Kushal Chandra Hazarika. 3. From the said select list, JC Handique was appointed, on 25-01-1984, as Executive Magistrate. At the time of his selection and appointment, as Executive Magistrate, JC Handique had been functioning as regularly appointed Agriculture Extension Officer. JC Handique, therefore, on being released, on 10-02-1994, from the post of Agriculture Extension Officer, Government of Assam, joined, at Tezpur, on 13-02-1984, as Executive Magistrate. 4. After about 3 1/2 months of the appointment of JC Handique, a letter was, on 11-05-1984, issued by the Department of Home (A), Government of Assam, informing, amongst others, Bipulananda Pathak that the Government had decided to appoint him (Bipulananda Pathak) to the Assam Police Service, as probationary DSP, and directed him to keep himself in readiness to report to the Assam Police Training College, Dergaon, on receipt of information from the Director General of Police, Assam. The letter, dated 11-05-1984, however, also mentioned that it was not known to the Department of Home, Government of Assam, if Bipulananda Pathak and other (in whose favour the letter, dated 11-05-1984, aforementioned was being issued), had appeared before the Medical Board for their examination to get their fitness for service determined. The letter, dated 11-05-1984, aforementioned made it clear that if they were not medically found fit, they would not be allowed to join the Assam Police Training College, Dergaon. The letter, dated 11-05-1984, further stated that the appointments would be formally notified after the persons, who had been decided to be appointed to the Assam Police Service, on probationary basis, as DSP, join the Assam Police Training College and in case, any of them was unwilling to accept the offer, he must inform the Department concerned accordingly within 7 days from the date of receipt of the said letter, dated 11-05-1984, aforementioned. 5. The letter, dated 11-05-1984, was followed by a WT Message, dated 13-06-1984, issued by the Personal (A) Department, Government of Assam, addressed to Bipulananda Pathak, C/O Principal, Assam Police Training College, Dergaon, intimating the latter, with reference to his representation, dated 30-05-1984, that he (Bipulananda Pathak) may be posted, subject to his release by the Home Department, as DTO and he may join the post of DTO on receipt of posting order from the Transport Department. By the WT Message, dated 13-06-1984, aforementioned, the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Home Department, was also requested to release Bipulananda Pathak so as to enable him to join as DTO, when Bipulananda Pathak is appointed by the Transport Department. A copy of WT Message given aforementioned was also endorsed to the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Transport Department. 6. A copy of WT Message given aforementioned was also endorsed to the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Transport Department. 6. Though the WT Message, dated 13-06-1984, aforementioned, indicated that the Government was willing to appoint Bipulananda Pathak as DTO subject to his release from the Home Department and Bipulananda Pathak could join the post on receipt of posting order from the Transport Department, a notification was issued, on 20-06-1984, by the Home Department, Personal (A) Branch, Government of Assam, appointing as many as 12 persons to the Assam Police Service, on probation, with effect from the date of joining as shown against each of them and they were directed to be deputed to the Assam Police Training College, Dergaon, to undergo a course of training for a period of 12 months making it clear that their inter se seniority would be determined later on. In this notification, dated 20-06-1984, name of Bipulananda Pathak appeared at Sl. No. 11 and his date of joining was shown as 01-06-1984. In fact, all the appointees, according to the notification, dated 20-06-1984, had joined the Assam Police Training College on 01-06-1984 (FN). Thus, before Bipulananda Pathak could be appointed to the cadre of DTO, he became, by virtue of his appointment by the notification, dated 20-06-1984, a member of the cadre of the Assam Police Service, in the grade of DSP, on probationary basis, with effect from 01-06-1984. 7. Close on the heels of the notification, dated 20-06-1984, aforementioned, issued by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Home Department, another notification was published, on 26-06-1984, by the Government of Assam, Home Department, Personal (A) Branch, whereby Bipulananda Pathak, the then probationary DSP, undergoing training in Assam Police Training College, Dergaon, was released from the Assam Police Service, with effect from the date his handing over charge for appointment as DTO, making thereby clear that Bipulananda Pathak could be considered released with effect from the moment he hands over charge. On the following day, i.e., 27-06-1984, a notification was published by the Government of Assam, Transport and Tourism Department, appointing Bipulananda Pathak as DTO at the Headquarter, whereupon Bipulananda Pathak claims to have handed over, on 02-07-1984, the charge, as DSP probationary and assumed the charge of office of DTO on 23.06.1984. 8. On the following day, i.e., 27-06-1984, a notification was published by the Government of Assam, Transport and Tourism Department, appointing Bipulananda Pathak as DTO at the Headquarter, whereupon Bipulananda Pathak claims to have handed over, on 02-07-1984, the charge, as DSP probationary and assumed the charge of office of DTO on 23.06.1984. 8. Before, however, the notification, dated 27-06-1984, aforementioned was issued by Transport and Tourism Department, Government of Assam, appointing Bipulananda Pathak as DTO, Kushal Chandra Hazarika (i.e., the Petitioner in WP (C) No. 5666/2000), was already appointed by the said Department, on 23-06-1984, as the DTO and he accordingly joined the post on 23-06-1984 itself. 9. On 20-04-1984, a WT Message was issued by Personal (A) Department, Government of Assam, informing JC Handique that he was likely to be considered for appointment to the post of DTO and Government wants his willingness to accept the post of DTO. JC Handique, having intimated his willingness to join the post as DTO, a notification was issued, on 30-05-1985, by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Transport, Department, appointing him as DTO. On 29-06-1985, JC Handique was released from the post of the Executive Magistrate, with effect from 01-07-1985, to enable him to join as DTO and pursuant thereto, JC Handique joined, as DTO, on the same day, i.e., on 01-07-1985. By subsequent letter, dated 24-07-1984, Government of Assam, while fixing JC Handique's pay, as an officer of ACS-II service, provided pay protection of the last pay drawn by JC Handique, as Agriculture Extension Officer. 10. A provisional gradation list was, then, published on 31-07-1989, wherein the name of Kushal Ch. Hazarika figured at Sl. No. 9, whereas the names of Bipulananda Pathak and JC Handique appeared at Sl. No, 14 and 11 respectively, 11. A provisional gradation list was published on 02-06-1994, wherein the name of JC Handique appeared below Bipulananda Pathak. JC Handique submitted his representation against the said provisional gradation list by contending to the effect that his tenure as Agriculture Extension Officer as well as Executive Magistrate ought to have been counted and he ought to have been, consequently, treated senior to Bipulananda Pathak by taking into account his previous service rendered in the post of Agriculture Extension Officer and the period of service rendered as Executive Magistrate, because there was no break in his service. 12. 12. As JC Handique's objection, so raised, did not yield any favourable result, JC Handique filed an appeal under Section 4 of the Assam Administrative Tribunal Act, 1977, claiming relief of declaration that he ought to have been treated as senior, in the "cadre" of DTO, to Bipulananda Pathak. This appeal gave rise to Case No. 15ATA/1995. By order, dated 14-09-1995, the Tribunal dismissed the said application. JC Handique challenged the order, dated 14-09-1995, whereby the learned Tribunal had rejected his claim for seniority over Bipulananda Pathak, in the "cadre" of DTO, by filing a writ petition, which gave rise to Civil Rule No. 5476/1995. An interim order was, initially, passed, on 20-12-1995, in Civil Rule No. 5476/1995, preventing promotion on the basis of the said provisional gradation list, dated 02-06-1994. This writ petition was, eventually, dismissed, on 18-07-2001, for non-prosecution. Thus, the order, dated 14-09-2005, passed by the learned Tribunal dismissing JC Handique's appeal against the provisional gradation list, wherein Bipulananda Pathak had figured as senior to JC Handique, remained undisturbed and attained finality. 13. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued, on 29-03-1997, to Bipulananda Pathak on various charges and pursuant thereto, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. While the departmental proceeding was pending, a provisional gradation list was published on 12-08-1999, wherein Bipulananda Pathak was shown at Sl. No. 7, JC Handique at Sl. No. 8 and KC Hazarika was place at Sl. No. 9 thereof. 14. Yet another gradation list was circulated on 27-08-1999, wherein inter se seniority position, as in the gradation list, dated 12-08-1999, was maintained. 15. Notwithstanding the fact that his earlier claim for seniority over Bipulananda Pathak had been rejected by the learned Assam Administrative Tribunal, JC Handique filed another objection, on 22-09-1999, against the said provisional gradation list, dated 27-08-1999. During the pendency of the objection, so raised, by JC Handique, selection for the post of Assistant Commissioner, Transport, which is a promotional post with the post of DTO as the feeder post, was held on 30-11-1999. Following the selection, so held, Bipulananda Pathak was placed at Sl. No. 2. However, selection of Bipulananda Pathak was kept in a sealed cover due to the pendency of the disciplinary proceeding drawn against him. In the meanwhile, the candidate at Sl. No. 1 retired on superannuation. Following the selection, so held, Bipulananda Pathak was placed at Sl. No. 2. However, selection of Bipulananda Pathak was kept in a sealed cover due to the pendency of the disciplinary proceeding drawn against him. In the meanwhile, the candidate at Sl. No. 1 retired on superannuation. The other post of Assistant Commissioner, Transport, fell vacant due to promotion of its earlier incumbent to the post of Deputy Commissioner, Transport. However, there was no selected candidate available to be promoted to the post of the Deputy Commissioner, Transport, because of the fact that there was no regularly appointed Assistant Commissioner, Transport. In these circumstances, orders were made for holding fresh selection for filling up the vacancies in the posts of Assistant Commissioner, Transport, as well as Deputy Commissioner, Transport. 16. In the meanwhile, however, Bipulananda Pathak filed a writ petition against the process of fresh selection so initiated and also against the disciplinary proceeding, which had been drawn against him on the strength of the show cause notice, dated 29-03-1997, aforementioned. The writ petition gave rise to WP (C) No. 1466 of 2000. The Selection Committee was, then, constituted, on 06-04-2000, for holding fresh selection. As against constitution of the Selection Committee, Bipulananda Pathak filed another writ petition, which gave rise to WP (C) No. 1905 of 2000. Both these writ petitions, namely, WP (C) Nos. 1466/2000 and 1905 of 2000, were allowed, on11-05-2001, in favour of Bipulananda Pathak. Against the order, dated 11-05-2001, aforementioned, passed in the said two writ petitions, JC Handique filed Writ Appeal No. 205 of 2001; but this writ appeal was dismissed on 24-06-2009. Against the dismissal of the appeal, JC Handique filed a Special Leave Petition, which gave rise to SLP (C) No. 12258/2001. By order, dated 12-09-2003, special leave was granted; but this special leave petition was, eventually, dismissed. 17. JC Handique, once again, filed a writ petition, which gave rise to WP (C) No. 660 of 2003. In this writ petition, no reference was made as regards dismissal of his earlier appeal, made to the learned Assam Administrative Tribunal, claiming seniority over Bipulananda Pathak. This writ petition was disposed of, on 28-01-2003, with a direction to publish the final gradation list within a period of three months after considering the representations submitted by him (JC Handique). In this writ petition, no reference was made as regards dismissal of his earlier appeal, made to the learned Assam Administrative Tribunal, claiming seniority over Bipulananda Pathak. This writ petition was disposed of, on 28-01-2003, with a direction to publish the final gradation list within a period of three months after considering the representations submitted by him (JC Handique). Bipulananda Pathak too filed a writ petition being WP (C) No. 3345 of 2003 raising, inter alia, dispute as regards seniority. This writ petition too was disposed of, on 13-05-2003, with a direction to the Principal Secretary, Transport Department, to consider the representations of JC Handique and Bipulananda Pathak. The Principal Secretary, Department of Transport, Government of Assam, passed an order, on 09-09-2003, declaring JC Handique senior to Bipulananda Pathak on the ground that while JC Handique joined as Executive Magistrate on 13-02-1984, Bipulananda Pathak joined, as probationary DSP, on 01-06-1984, and there was, thus, a difference of more than three months between the dates of appointment of the two officers in two different posts based on one competitive list and since the date of appointment of JC Handique as Executive Magistrate is earlier than Bipulananda Pathak's appointment as DSP and the Government had protected the pay of JC Handique, while appointing him to the "cadre" of DTO, JC Handique is senior to Bipulananda Pathak. 18. Before, however, the order, dated 09-09-2003, aforementioned was passed by the Principal Secretary, to the Government of Assam, Transport Department, KC Hazarika filed a writ petition claiming seniority over both Bipulananda Pathak and also JC Handique. The writ petition has given rise to WP (C) No. 5666/2000. 19. Aggrieved by the order, dated 09-09-2003, whereby JC Handique has been declared senior to Bipulananda Pathak, Bipulananda Pathak too has filed a writ petition, which has given rise to WP (C) No. 7864 of 2003, putting to challenge the order, dated 09-09-2003, aforementioned. 20. By this common judgment and order, I propose to dispose of, as already indicated above, both the writ petitions, namely, WP (C) No. 5666/2000 and WP (C) No. 7864/2003. 21. I have heard Mr. MK Choudhury, learned Senior counsel, appearing for KC Hazarika, and Mr. N Dutta, learned Senior counsel, for JC Handique. I have also heard Mr. DK Mishra, learned Senior counsel, for Bipulananda Pathak, and Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the State Respondents. 22. 21. I have heard Mr. MK Choudhury, learned Senior counsel, appearing for KC Hazarika, and Mr. N Dutta, learned Senior counsel, for JC Handique. I have also heard Mr. DK Mishra, learned Senior counsel, for Bipulananda Pathak, and Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the State Respondents. 22. Shocking though it may sound, I may pause here to point out that the entire records, relating to the selection process, which forms the subject-matter of the present writ petitions, are, according to the State Government, untraceable. These writ petitions, therefore, need to be decided on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and the materials on record. It may, however, be clarified that the pleadings and the relevant records are adequate enough to reach effective decision in these two intensely contested writ petitions. The case of Bipulananda Pathak vis-a-vis the case of J.C. Handique: 23. Before entering into the discussion of the merit of the case of Kushal Chandra Hazarika (Petitioner in WP (C) No. 5666 of 2000) vis-a-vis the cases of the other two concerned parties, namely, Bipulananda Pathak and J.C. Handique, not only desirable but more appropriate it is that the dispute over the inter se seniority between Bipulananda Pathak and J.C. Handique be discussed and decided first. 24. While considering the respective cases of Bipulananda Pathak (Petitioner in WP (C) 7864/2003) and J.C. Handique (Respondent No. 3 in WP (C) No. 7864/2003 and Respondent No. 4 in WP (C) No. 5666 of 2000), it is of utmost importance to note that, on publication of a provisional gradation list, on 12.08.1999, wherein the name of J. C. Handique appeared below the name of Bipulananda Pathak, J.C. Handique submitted a representation against the said provisional gradation list, as indicated above, by contending to the effect that his tenure as Agriculture Extension Officer as well as Executive Magistrate ought to have been counted and he ought to have been, consequently, treated senior to Bipulananda Pathak by taking into account his previous service rendered in the post of Agriculture Extension Officer and also the period of service rendered as Executive Magistrate, because there was no break in his service. J.C. Handique's said representation, objecting to the said provisional gradation list, having yielded no favourable result, he filed an appeal, under Section 4 of the Assam Administrative Tribunal Act, 1977, claiming relief of declaration that in the "cadre" of District Transport Officer (hereinafter referred to as DTO), he ought to have been treated as senior to Bipulananda Pathak. This appeal gave rise to Case No. 15 ATA/1995. By its order, dated 14.09.1995, the learned Assam Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), which had the jurisdiction to decide the question of inter se seniority between the two parties aforementioned, specifically dealt with the Appellant's (J.C. Handique's) contention, in the said appeal, that while determining inter se seniority, the period the service, rendered by him (the Appellant), in the post of Agriculture Extension Officer and also in the post of Executive Magistrate, ought to have been counted. Having, thus, considered J.C. Handique's grievances, the learned Tribunal concluded and held that when a person, having been appointed, in a department, on direct recruitment, goes and joins an identical post, on transfer, in a new department, he cannot claim seniority in the new department on the basis of his previous service rendered and, hence, the Appellant, J.C. Handique, cannot claim seniority over Bipulananda Pathak on the basis of the service, which he had rendered in the post of Agriculture Extension Officer. As regards the service, which the Appellant, J.C. Handique, had rendered in the post of Executive Magistrate, the learned Tribunal pointed out that both Bipulananda Pathak and J.C. Handique had been appointed out of the same merit list and, since J.C. Handique's position in the merit list was 46th, whereas Bipulananda Pathak's position in the merit list was 26th, J.C. Handique cannot claim seniority over Bipulananda Pathak. The correctness of the order of the learned Tribunal and the legality thereof were put to challenge by J.C. Handique by filing a writ petition, which gave rise to Civil Rule No. 5476/1995. This writ petition, as indicated above, was, eventually, dismissed on 18.07.2001, for non-prosecution. 25. Thus, the order, dated 14.09.1995, passed by the learned Tribunal, dismissing J.C. Handique's appeal against the provisional gradation list, wherein Bipulananda Pathak had figured as senior to J.C. Handique, remained undisturbed and attained, thus, finality. This writ petition, as indicated above, was, eventually, dismissed on 18.07.2001, for non-prosecution. 25. Thus, the order, dated 14.09.1995, passed by the learned Tribunal, dismissing J.C. Handique's appeal against the provisional gradation list, wherein Bipulananda Pathak had figured as senior to J.C. Handique, remained undisturbed and attained, thus, finality. Hence, the question as to who, between the two, namely, J.C. Handique and Bipulananda Pathak, was senior, could not have been disturbed/reconsidered in any subsequent proceeding so long as the dismissal order of the appeal aforementioned remained intact and in force. 26. Notwithstanding the above-stated position of law, J.C. Handique, once again, filed a writ petition, which gave rise to WP (C) 660 of 2003. In this writ petition, however, no reference was made as regards the dismissal of his earlier appeal, which had been filed by him claiming seniority over Bipulananda Pathak. Thus, this writ petition (WP (C) 660/2003) ex facie suffered from the vires of suppression of material facts and, consequently, any judicial order, obtained in the said writ petition, namely, WP (C) 660/2003, cannot but be regarded as an order obtained by, if not committing fraud, misleading the Court. Writ jurisdiction is substantially equitable in nature and a person, who attempts to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of the High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by suppressing material facts, must be treated to have approached the writ Court with unclean hands. 27. Be that as it may, the writ petition, namely, WP (C) 660 of 2003, did not disturb the position of seniority between the parties concerned, as had been decided by the learned Tribunal, inasmuch as the writ petition was disposed of, on 28.01.2003, with direction to the Respondents (Government) to publish final gradation list within a period of three months after consideration of the representation submitted by J.C. Handique. The said direction of the Court, which was given, on 28.01.2003, in WP (C) 660 of 2003, cannot be treated to have annulled or superseded the findings of the learned Tribunal with regard to the inter se seniority between the two contesting parties, namely, J.C. Handique and Bipulananda Pathak, which had attained finality by operation of law. 28. The said direction of the Court, which was given, on 28.01.2003, in WP (C) 660 of 2003, cannot be treated to have annulled or superseded the findings of the learned Tribunal with regard to the inter se seniority between the two contesting parties, namely, J.C. Handique and Bipulananda Pathak, which had attained finality by operation of law. 28. Obviously, therefore, the Government could not have disposed of the representation contrary to the findings of the learned Tribunal inasmuch as the decision of the Tribunal, according to the provisions, embodied under Section 9 of the Assam Administrative Tribunal Act, 1977, shall be treated as final. The authorities concerned, therefore, could not have but dismissed J.C. Handique's representation claiming seniority over Bipulananda Pathak. Similarly, though Bipulananda Pathak too filed a writ petition (which gave rise to WP (C) 3345 of 2003) raising, inter alia, dispute as regards seniority and though this writ petition too was disposed of, on 13.05.2003, with a direction to the Principal Secretary, Transport Department, to consider the representations of J.C. Handique and Bipulananda Pathak, the fact remains that even the order, dated 13.05.2003, (whereby this Court disposed of WP (C) 3345/2003, with direction to the Principal Secretary, Transport Department, Government of Assam, to consider the representation of J. C. Handique and Bipulananda Pathak), could not have been taken to have, and cannot be taken to have, annulled or superseded the order, dated 14.09.1995, passed by the learned Tribunal, rejecting J. C. Handique's claim of seniority over Bipulananda Pathak. 29. When direction had been given by the High Court, in WP (C) 660/2003 as well WP (C) 3345/2003, to the Principal Secretary, Transport Department, to dispose of the representations, the Principal Secretary ought to have disposed of/dismissed the representations by clearly indicating therein that the question of inter se seniority, between the parties concerned, had already been decided by the learned Assam Administrative Tribunal and that in the face of such an order, which had, in the light of the provisions of Section 9 of the Assam Administrative Tribunal Act, 1977, attained finality by operation of law, Bipulananda Pathak cannot but be treated as senior to J.C. Handique. The Principal Secretary, Transport Department, Govt. The Principal Secretary, Transport Department, Govt. of Assam, had no authority to supersede or set at naught the order of the learned Tribunal, which had already decided the controversy with regard to seniority between Bipulananda Pathak and J.C. Handique and which order had attained finality by virtue of Section 9 of the Assam Administrative Tribunal Act, 1977. 30. The Principal Secretary, however, took a strange ground in holding J.C. Handique senior to Bipulananda Pathak, the ground being that J.C. Handique had joined the service as Executive Magistrate, on 13.02.1984, whereas Bipulananda Pathak joined the service, as probationary Deputy Superintendent of Police, on 01.06.1984, and there was, thus, a difference of more than three months between the dates of joining of the two officers, in two different posts, based on the same competitive list and since the date of joining of J.C. Handique, as Executive Magistrate, is earlier than Bipulananda Pathak's date of joining in the "cadre" of Deputy Superintendent of Police, and that Government had protected the pay of J.C. Handique, while appointing him to the "cadre" of DTO, J.C. Handique is senior to Bipulananda Pathak. 31. Apart from the fact that, legally speaking, the learned Tribunal's order, dated 14.09.1995, finally determining the seniority between the parties concerned, could not have been disturbed or set at naught by the Principal Secretary, Transport Department, Government of Assam, what is also significant to note is that merely because a person happens to join earlier, he does not become senior to another person irrespective of his merit position in the combined merit list; hence, when both J.C. Handique and Bipulananda Pathak had been appointed from, and out of, one and the same competitive merit list, the mere fact, that J. C. Handique had been appointed earlier than Bipulananda Pathak, could not have been made a ground for treating J.C. Handique senior to Bipulananda Pathak. 32. 32. Further-more, the appointment of J.C. Handique and Bipulananda Pathak, on 13.02.1984 and 01.06.1984, respectively, were to two different "cadres", namely, the "cadre" of Executive Magistrate and Deputy Superintendent of Police respectively, and their inter se seniority, in the "cadre" of DTO, could not have been determined on the basis of their original dates of appointment in the "cadre" of Executive Magistrate and/or Deputy Superintendent of Police, as the case may be, and/or on the basis of the competitive merit list inasmuch as the combined merit list was relevant only for the purpose of determining inter se seniority of the members of a given service or "cadre" within their own service or cadre, as the case may be. Consequently, when a person, who occupies first position in the combined competitive merit list, happens to be recruited to the "cadre" of Executive Magistrate and, then, shifts his "cadre", by way of transfer or otherwise, to another "cadre", such as, the "cadre" of Deputy Superintendent of Police, he cannot claim inter se seniority over the members of the "cadre" of Deputy Superintendent of Police on the basis of his position in the combined competitive merit list inasmuch as he, having opted to go to another "cadre", cannot carry his seniority from his original "cadre" to the "cadre" to which he opts to go and his entry to the "cadre" of the Deputy Superintendent of Police would make him a new entrant into the "cadre" of the Deputy Superintendent of Police and he would be treated as junior-most in the "cadre" of the Deputy Superintendent of Police. 33. In the present case, it needs to be borne in mind that the selection process, based on which the combined merit list was published and which forms the subject-matter of the present writ petitions, was held for several 'services', which constituted different "cadres". Though all the 'services', which were covered by a common selection process, belong to Class-II of the Assam Civil Services, the fact of the matter remains that each of these services constituted a separate "cadre". 34. Consequently, the "cadre" of the Executive Magistrate is wholly different from the "cadre" of Deputy Superintendent of Police and the "cadre" of District Transport Officer is wholly different from, and independent of, the "cadre" of the Executive Magistrate and/or of the "cadre" of the Deputy Superintendent of Police. 34. Consequently, the "cadre" of the Executive Magistrate is wholly different from the "cadre" of Deputy Superintendent of Police and the "cadre" of District Transport Officer is wholly different from, and independent of, the "cadre" of the Executive Magistrate and/or of the "cadre" of the Deputy Superintendent of Police. The relevant rules, admittedly, do not perceive of appointment of DTO by transfer from a different "service". In such a situation, when a member of, say, police service, or any other services opts to go out of his own service and enters into the 'cadre' of the DTO, his appointment, as DTO, would be treated as a fresh appointment unless the rules or executive instructions, in force at the relevant point of time, allow him to carry the past service or his seniority in the original 'service' or 'cadre' to the newly opted 'service' or 'cadre', as the case may be. In the case at hand, the relevant recruitment rules do not, admittedly, provide for any transfer, as indicated hereinbefore, from one 'service' to another or from one 'cadre' to another nor did any executive instructions exist, at the relevant point of time, permitting appointment on transfer from one 'cadre' to another. 35. The competitive examination, in the present case, was held for direct recruitment to different "services", which, as already indicated hereinbefore, constitute independent "cadres". The merit list, which, eventually, emerged following the selection process, would be relevant only for the purpose of determining inter se merit position/seniority of the members of a particular "cadre", who might have been appointed to that particular "cadre". In such a case, if five persons are appointed as Executive Magistrates, their inter se seniority, in the "cadre" of Executive Magistrate, will be governed by their respective position in the combined merit list. Similarly, when another set of five persons are appointed to the "cadre" of Deputy Superintendent of Police, their inter se seniority, in the "cadre" of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, will be governed by their respective position in the said merit list. Similarly, when another set of five persons are appointed to the "cadre" of Deputy Superintendent of Police, their inter se seniority, in the "cadre" of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, will be governed by their respective position in the said merit list. However, when a person opts to go, on transfer or otherwise, from the "cadre" of the Executive Magistrate to the "cadre" of Deputy Superintendent of Police, or, from the "cadre" of Deputy Superintendent of Police to the "cadre" of Executive Magistrate, he cannot, on the basis of his position in the combined merit list, claim seniority over the other members of the "cadre" to which he opts to go inasmuch as the inter se seniority of the members, who have already constituted the "cadre" (to which such a person opts to join) cannot be allowed to be disturbed by the entry of the person, who opts to join the new "cadre", howsoever meritorious the new person may be and/or whatever his position, in the original combined merit list, may be, particularly, when the relevant service rules do not provide for carrying of seniority from one "cadre" to another "cadre". If shifting of "cadre", in Government service, relying on the position in the original merit list, is permitted, seniority position of the Government servants, in every 'cadre' would always remain fluctuating. 36. Once a person is appointed to a particular "cadre" from a combined merit list, his inter se seniority, in his "cadre", would depend on his merit position in the combined merit list. In this manner, persons, from a combined merit list, may be appointed to different "services", each of which would constitute a separate "cadre". Inter se seniority of the members of each of such "cadres" would depend on the combined merit list; but, when a person, higher in merit in a "cadre", goes, on his own option, to another "cadre", he cannot claim, on the basis of his merit position in the original combined merit list, seniority over the other members of the "cadre", who may have already formed a 'cadre', for, having come from a different "cadre", he would be treated as a new entrant to the "cadre" to which he has opted to come. 37. 37. Thus, when five persons are appointed from one combined merit list as Executive Magistrates and five persons are appointed from the same combined merit list as Deputy Superintendents of Police and five others are appointed from the said combined merit list to the "cadre" of DTO, the inter se seniority of each of them, in their respective "cadre", would be governed by the combined merit list. When, however, any member of such a "cadre" goes from one "cadre" to any other "cadre", his entry into the "cadre" to which he goes, would be a new entry to the "cadre" and he cannot claim seniority over the other members of the "cadre" to which he has gone, because his position, in the combined merit list, would be relevant only as long as he remains in his original "cadre". 38. It is, therefore, entirely optional for a person to go, if the service rules so allow, to another "service'; but he cannot, on entry into a new "service", claim seniority over the others of the new "service" unless the rules provide otherwise. In other words, in the event of a person opting to go, by way of transfer and otherwise, to a different "service", he cannot claim seniority over other members of the "service" to which he is transferred to, because he would be a fresh recruit to the "service" to which he has opted to come. 39. While, therefore, considering the question of seniority, in the "cadre" of DTO, in the present cases, one has to only determine as to who were the direct appointees to the "cadre" of DTO from the combined merit list. No other person from the combined merit list would be allowed to enter into the "cadre" of DTO and disturb the inter se seniority position of the member(s) of the "cadre" of DTO merely because his entry, though new to the "cadre" of the DTO, was from a combined merit list, where his position was higher than that of those, who had already constituted the "cadre" of the DTO. The new entrant, in the absence of any rules or administrative instructions operating otherwise, cannot claim, and shall not be allowed to claim, seniority over the other members of the "cadre" of DTO. The new entrant, in the absence of any rules or administrative instructions operating otherwise, cannot claim, and shall not be allowed to claim, seniority over the other members of the "cadre" of DTO. It is this principle, which, in the present case, needs to be adhered to, particularly, when the relevant rules do not provide for appointment of DTO on transfer from a different "service" and also do not allow restoration of seniority on the basis of combined merit list if one chooses to join as DTO by opting to cease to be a member of the "cadre" of Assam Police Service or of the 'cadre' of Executive Magistrate. 40. If the candidates/Government servants, originally, appointed on the basis of a select list drawn out of a combined competitive examination, are allowed to hunt for better avenues by shifting from one "cadre" to another and, at the same time, be also allowed to carry their respective seniority positions in the combined merit list, the inter se seniority of such candidates/Government servants would always remain fluctuating, because anyone can opt to go to another "cadre" in order to gain seniority in the new "cadre", though he may not be so senior in his own "cadre". Instability in any system, and more particularly, in Government service, is neither in the interest of the candidates/Government servants nor in the interest of public. 41. In short, thus, in the facts and attending circumstances of the present case, J.C. Handique cannot be regarded, and ought not be regarded, in the "cadre" of DTO, as senior to Bipulananda Pathak merely because he had joined as Executive Magistrate before Bipulananda Pathak had joined the "cadre" of Deputy Superintendent of Police. This apart, both JC Handique and Bipulananda Pathak had become members of different "cadres", namely, Executive Magistrate and Deputy Superintendent of Police, respectively, and none of them, while entering into the "cadre" of DTO, could have, in law, claim seniority over those persons, who were already members of the "cadre" of DTO. Such a course of action would, if allowed, make the inter se seniority position, in any other "service" or "cadre", unstable, which is, as already indicated above, neither in the interest of the Government servants nor in the interest of the public. 42. Let me, now, come to another facet of challenge posed by J. C. Handique claiming seniority over Bipulananda Pathak. 42. Let me, now, come to another facet of challenge posed by J. C. Handique claiming seniority over Bipulananda Pathak. It has been contended, on behalf of J.C. Handique, that Bipulananda Pathak had deserted the Assam Police Service and, as a deserter, there was break in his "service" and, because of such break in his "service", Bipulananda Pathak could not have, in any circumstances, been regarded as senior to J.C. Handique in the cadre of DTO. 43. While considering the above aspect of the challenge posed by J. C. Handique to the seniority of Bipulananda Pathak, it needs to be borne in mind that this submission was made, at a belated stage, by deriving strength from the additional affidavit and the materials on record, which Bipulananda Pathak has brought on record. Let us, therefore, notice as to what the materials on record are to lend support, if any, to J.C. Handique's case that Bipulananda Pathak's "service" career suffers from break in "service". 44. While considering the above aspect of the matter, it needs to be noted that the combined merit list was published on 26.07.1983. On being appointed, by order, dated 25.01.1984, as Executive Magistrate, J.C. Handique joined as Executive Magistrate on 13.02.1984. By a letter, dated 11.05.1984, issued by the Government of Assam, Department of Home, A - Branch, Bipulananda Pathak and 13 others were informed that the Government had decided to appoint them in Assam Police "service" as probationary Deputy Superintendent of Police and they were asked to keep themselves ready to report to the Assam Police Training College, Dergaon, on receipt of information from the Director General and Inspector General of Police, Assam. The letter also indicated that since the authority, issuing the letter, had no information whether the candidates, mentioned in the letter, dated 11.05.1984, had or had not been examined by Medical Board and found fit or not to join police "service", the candidates were also informed by the said letter that unless medical certificates were received from the Medical Board with regard to medical fitness of the candidates, they would not be allowed to undergo training at the Assam Police Training College and, as far as one candidate, namely, Hemango Borgohain, was concerned, he was requested to appear before the Medical Board on receipt of the said letter if he had not already done so. The letter, dated 11.05.1984, further mentioned that the candidates would be formally informed about their appointment after they joined the Police Training College and if any of them was not willing to accept the offer, it must be so intimated to the author of the letter within seven days from the date of receipt of the said letter. The relevant portion of this letter reads as under: GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM DEPARTMENT (A) BRANCH, DISPUR No. HMA. 1874/82/30: Dated Dispur the 11th May, 1984. FROM: SRI M. N. BORGOHAIN, UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, HOME (A) DEPARTMENT. TO: (1).... (2).... (3).... (4).... (5).... (6).... (7).... (8).... (9).... (10).... (11).... (12).... (13) Sri Bipula Nanda Pathak, Ward No. 34, P.O. Dispur, Kamrup. (14).... Sub: - APPOINTMENT TO THE ASSAM POLICE SERVICE. Sir, I am directed to say that government have decided to appoint you to the Assam Police Service as Probationary Deputy Superintendent of Police. You are, therefore, requested to please keep yourself in readiness to report to the Principal, Assam Police Training College, Dergaon (district-Jorhat) on receipt of information from the Director General and Inspector General of Police, Assam, Ulubari, Guwahati. It is not known whether you have appeared before the Medical Board. Unless the medical certificate is received from the Medical Board about your medical fitness, you will not be allowed to join the APTC. You are, therefore, requested to appear before Medical Board on receipt of this letter if not already done (for Sri Bemango Borgohain only). Your appointment will be formally notified after you join the Training College as directed above. In case you are unwilling to accept this offer, you must intimate the undersigned within 7 (seven) days from the date of receipt of this letter. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (M.N. BORGOHAIN) UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, HOME (A) DEPARTMENT." 45. Mr. D. K. Mishra, learned Senior counsel, appearing on behalf of Bipulananda Pathak, contends, and I fully agree, that the letter, dated 11.05.1984 aforementioned, is a letter offering appointment to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Probationary) and, consequently, the letter, dated 11.05.1984, cannot be construed as appointment letter. 46. Mr. D. K. Mishra, learned Senior counsel, appearing on behalf of Bipulananda Pathak, contends, and I fully agree, that the letter, dated 11.05.1984 aforementioned, is a letter offering appointment to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Probationary) and, consequently, the letter, dated 11.05.1984, cannot be construed as appointment letter. 46. Following the offer of appointment to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, made by the letter, dated 11.05.1984, aforementioned, a notification was published by the Government of Assam, Department of Home, A - Branch, whereunder as many as twelve persons were appointed to the Assam Public "service" on probation, with effect from the respective dates of their joining. This notification clearly shows that Bipulananda Pathak, whose name appeared at Serial No. 11, was appointed, on probation, to the Assam Police "service" w.e.f. his date of joining, his date of joining being 01.06.1984 (F/N). 47. There can be, thus, no escape from the conclusion that having received the offer of appointment by letter, dated 11.05.1984, Bipulananda Pathak had joined the Assam Police Service on 01.06.1984 and became a member of the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police. The relevant portion of the said Notification is reproduced below: "ORDERS BY THE GOVERNOR No. HMA. 1874/82/37: Dated Dispur, the 20th June, 1984. NOTIFICATION The following candidates are appointed, on probation to the Assam Police Service with effect from the dates of joining as shown against each and are deputed to the Assam Police Training College, Dergaon to undergo a course of training for a period of 12 months. Their inter se seniority will be determined later on. Sl. No. Names Date of Joining 1. Shri Benudhar Basumatary 1.6.84 (FN) 2. Shri Subrajyoti Hazarika 1.6.84 (FN) 3. Shri Satyen Gogoi 1.6.84 (FN) 4. Shri Pradip Saloi 1.6.84 (FN) 5. Shri Apurba Jiban Baruah 1.6.84 (FN) 6. Shri Syed Ataul Karim 1.6.84 (FN) 7. Shri Nawab Md. Abu Saleh 1.6.84 (FN) 8. Shri Tajindra Pal Singh 1.6.84 (FN) 9. Shri Gunindra Mohan Choudhury 1.6.84 (FN) 10. Shri Bhakta Bahadur Chetri 1.6.84 (FN) 11. Shri Bipula Nanda Pathak 1.6.84 (FN) 12 Shri Amarendra Borgohain 1.6.84 (FN) Sd/- (JATIN HAZARIKA) COMMISSIONER & SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, HOME DEPARTMENT 48. Shri Nawab Md. Abu Saleh 1.6.84 (FN) 8. Shri Tajindra Pal Singh 1.6.84 (FN) 9. Shri Gunindra Mohan Choudhury 1.6.84 (FN) 10. Shri Bhakta Bahadur Chetri 1.6.84 (FN) 11. Shri Bipula Nanda Pathak 1.6.84 (FN) 12 Shri Amarendra Borgohain 1.6.84 (FN) Sd/- (JATIN HAZARIKA) COMMISSIONER & SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, HOME DEPARTMENT 48. What is, however, important, now, to note is that a WT message was floated by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Department of Personnel (A), on 30.06.1984, which shows that with reference to a petition, dated 30.05.1984, which Bipulananda Pathak had filed, the Department of Personnel, Government of Assam, informed Bipulananda Pathak that "subject to his release by the Home Department', he may be posted as District Transport Officer and he may join the post on receipt of Posting Order from the Transport Department. This letter clearly shows that before Bipulananda Pathak had joined the Assam Police "service", he made a request for being appointed as District Transport Officer and, after he had joined the Assam Police Service on 01.06.1984, the Personnel Department, Government of Assam, informed Bipulananda Pathak that he may be posted as District Transport officer provided that he is released by the Home Department. 49. Thus, the information, given to Bipulananda Pathak, as regards his appointment to the post of District Transport Officer, was clearly made conditional, the condition being that he would be so appointed and allowed joining as District Transport Officer provided that the Home Department agrees to release him from the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. This clearly shows that Bipulananda Pathak had, indeed, become a member of the Assam Police Service in the 'cadre' of Deputy Superintendent of Police and his subsequent appointment, as District Transport Officer, was a new appointment, because the relevant Service Rules do not envisage appointment of District Transport officer by way of transfer or otherwise from another service, such as, Assam Police Service. The WT message reads as under: TELEGRAM 13/6/04 SHRI BIPULANANDA PATHAK, C/O PRINCIPAL, POLICE TRAINING COLLEGE, DERGAON. No. AAP.130/83/273 REF YOUR PETITION DATED 30.5.84 SUBJECT TO RELEASE BY THE HOME DEPARTMENT YOU MAY BE POSTED AS DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER AND YOU MAY JOIN THE POST ON RECEIPT OF POSTING ORDER FROM TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT (.) ASSAM DISPUR Not to be telegraphed (A. K. Daolagupu) Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Department of Personnel (Personnel-A) 50. No. AAP.130/83/273 REF YOUR PETITION DATED 30.5.84 SUBJECT TO RELEASE BY THE HOME DEPARTMENT YOU MAY BE POSTED AS DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER AND YOU MAY JOIN THE POST ON RECEIPT OF POSTING ORDER FROM TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT (.) ASSAM DISPUR Not to be telegraphed (A. K. Daolagupu) Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Department of Personnel (Personnel-A) 50. Thereafter, a notification was issued, on 26.06.1984, releasing Bipulananda Pathak from the Assam Police "service" with effect from the date of his handing over charge for his appointment as District Transport Officer under the Transport Department. This Notification read: ORDERS BY THE GOVERNOR GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM HOME DEPARTMENT, (A) BRANCH, DISPUR No. HM. 1874/82/44: Dated Dispur, the 26th June, 1984. NOTIFICATION Shri Bipulananda Pathak, Probationary Deputy Superintendent of Police now undergoing training in the APTC. Dergaon, is released from the Assam Police Services with effect from the date he handover charge for appointment as District Transport Officer, under the Transport Department. Sd/- (JATIN HAZARIKA) COMMISSIONER & SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, HOME DEPARTMENT. 51. Pursuant to the notification, dated 26.06.1984, Bipulananda Pathak claims to have handed over charge, on 02.07.1984. In support of his claim, Bipulananda Pathak has given a photocopy of Certificate of Transfer of Charge. This certificate, however, does not show that anybody took over charge from him inasmuch as the Certificate of Transfer of Charge merely shows that Bipulananda Pathak had handed over charge, but the fact that he was released from the Police Training College, is not evidenced by this certificate. The Certificate of Transfer of Charge, which Bipulananda Pathak relies upon, is reproduced below: "CERTIFICATE FOR TRANSFER OF CHARGES Memo No. ______________/ PTC Dated Dergaon the 2nd July, 1984. To, The Secretary to the Government of Assam, Home Department. The Accountant General, Assam, Meghalaya, Nagaland etc. Shillong. The Inspector General of Police. The Executive Engineer, Building, Jorhat. The Treasury Officer, Dergaon Sub-Treasury. With reference to the Rule 145 of the Assam Financial Rules, the undersigned have the honour to report that I have this second day of July, 1984 at 4 O" clock in the afternoon have respectively delivered over and received charge as Probationary Dy. S.P. (P.T.C, Dergaon) in the Jorhat District . I have occupied official residence allotted to me w.e.f. 2nd day of July, 1984. To be struck out and initialed when there is no official residence. S.P. (P.T.C, Dergaon) in the Jorhat District . I have occupied official residence allotted to me w.e.f. 2nd day of July, 1984. To be struck out and initialed when there is no official residence. RELIEVING OFFICER I have vacated the official residence allotted to me w.e.f. 2nd day of July, 1984. Sd/- RELIEVED OFFICER 52. It has been pointed out by Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of Bipulananda Pathak, that since Bipulananda Pathak was appointed as Deputy Superintendent of Police, on probation, and had been undergoing training, he was not holding any charge post and, therefore, the question of formal handing and taking over of charge does not arise. There is, however, no foundation for such a submission in the pleadings of the parties. This apart, the notification, dated 26.06.1984, issued by the Government of Assam, Home Department, A-Branch, clearly shows that Bipulananda Pathak's release from the Assam Police "service" was with effect from the date of his handing over of charge. 53. However, Bipulananda Pathak was, then, appointed by Notification, dated 27.06.1984, issued by the Government of Assam, Transport Department, as District Transport Officer and he accordingly joined as District Transport Officer on 03.07.1984. 54. As far as J.C. Handique is concerned, he stood appointed, as already mentioned above, on 25.01.1984, and he joined as Executive Magistrate, at Tezpur, on 13.02.1984. On 20.04.1985, J. C. Handique, received a WT message from the Government of Assam, Personnel (A) Department, informing him that he was likely to be considered for the post of DTO and he was asked to inform the authority concerned if he was willing to be appointed as DTO. On 30.05.1985, J.C. Handique, having intimated his willingness, came to be appointed as DTO, by Notification, dated 30.05.1985. By order, dated 29.06.1985, J.C. Handique was released from the post of Executive Magistrate w.e.f. 01.07.1985 and he accordingly joined as DTO on 01.07.1985. By an order, dated 24.07.1987, the Government granted pay protection to J.C. Handique. 55. From the facts, enumerated above, it becomes clear that while Bipulananda Pathak was appointed as DTO, on 27.06.1984, and he joined as DTO on 03.07.1984, J.C. Handique, whose position in the combined merit list, was far below than that of Bipulananda Pathak, was appointed as DTO, on 30.05.1985, and he joined as DTO on 01.07.1985. 55. From the facts, enumerated above, it becomes clear that while Bipulananda Pathak was appointed as DTO, on 27.06.1984, and he joined as DTO on 03.07.1984, J.C. Handique, whose position in the combined merit list, was far below than that of Bipulananda Pathak, was appointed as DTO, on 30.05.1985, and he joined as DTO on 01.07.1985. The appointment of J.C. Handique, as DTO, was almost one year after the appointment of Bipulananda Pathak as DTO. 56. It is, thus, clear that J.C. Handique could not have been regarded, under any circumstances, as senior to Bipulananda Pathak, who had already become a member of the 'cadre' of DTO one year before J.C. Handique entered into, and became a member of, the 'cadre' of DTO. Though it is contended, on behalf of J.C. Handique, that it was at the instance of the Government that J.C. Handique joined as DTO, the fact of the matter remains that J.C. Handique was a member of the 'cadre' of Executive Magistrate and that without his willingness or option, he could not have been appointed as DTO. While he opted for appointment as DTO and was willing to take the advantage of the post of DTO and also to accept the consequences of the change in the 'cadre' of his "service" from Executive Magistrate to DTO, merely because of the fact that he gave his option on a query made by the Government, or that he was given pay protection, he cannot be treated to be senior to Bipulananda Pathak. 57. This apart, and above all, the question of inter se seniority between the two, namely, J.C. Handique and Bipulananda Pathak, stood finally determined by the order, dated 14.09.1995, of the Assam Administrative Tribunal and the writ petition, filed by J. C. Handique, against the said order of the learned Tribunal having been dismissed, the question of inter se seniority between J. C. Handique and Bipulananda Pathak cannot, as already indicated above, be reopened and the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, Transport Department, could not have made J.C. Handique senior to Bipulananda Pathak. 58. 58. Though the fact, that the Assam Administrative Tribunal's order, deciding seniority between J.C. Handique and Bipulananda Pathak had attained finality, as indicated above, is sufficient to treat Bipulananda Pathak as senior to J.C. Handique, the facts and circumstances, whereunder both these persons came to be appointed as DTO, have been discussed above for the purpose of determining the question of inter se seniority not only between J.C. Handique and Bipulananda Pathak, but also between Kushal Chandra Hazarika and Bipulananda Pathak. 59. Though the High Court had directed the Government to dispose of the J.C. Handique's representation, the fact of the matter remains that the Government, while disposing of a representation, cannot make an order, which is against law. Consequently, the Tribunal's order having attained finality in the eyes of law, the Government could not have reopened the question merely because the High Court had directed the representation to be disposed of by the Government. The disposal of the representation by the Government ought to have been in accordance with law meaning thereby that the Government should have had, and ought to have had, recorded, while disposing of the representation, that the dispute of inter se seniority between J.C. Handique and Bipulananda Pathak has, by operation of law, attained finality and, therefore, the Government cannot make Bipulananda Pathak junior to J.C. Handique. In a case of present nature, when a direction to dispose of a representation is given, the Government is nevertheless bound to decide the representation in accordance with law. If the Government would have held that in the light of the decision of the Administrative Tribunal and dismissal of the writ petition filed against the said order by J.C. Handique makes Bipulananda Pathak senior to J.C. Handique and J.C. Handique's representation, therefore, stands rejected; such an order would not have been an illegal order. 60. Repeatedly approaching the High Court by way of one writ petition or other does not give new lease of life to a controversy, which, otherwise, stands finally settled and decided in accordance with law. 61. Writ jurisdiction is, substantially, equitable in nature and a person, who comes with unclean hands or suppress material facts, is not entitled to any benefit. Repeatedly approaching the High Court by way of one writ petition or other does not give new lease of life to a controversy, which, otherwise, stands finally settled and decided in accordance with law. 61. Writ jurisdiction is, substantially, equitable in nature and a person, who comes with unclean hands or suppress material facts, is not entitled to any benefit. J.C. Handique inappropriately, and in defiance of all norms, suppressed from the High Court, while filing his second writ petition, that the controversy, which he was raising with regard to seniority, had already attained finality. So long as the order, passed by the learned Tribunal, remains intact and undisturbed, the question of overriding the Tribunal's order and holding J.C. Handique senior to Bipulananda Pathak does not legally arise at all. 62. When a competitive examination is held for various 'services' and appointment to a particular service is made, a person, appointed to a service, such as DTO, acquires his seniority on the basis of the position, which he occupies in the combined merit list; but after his appointment, inter se seniority of a person would not change if a person from another service, say, APS, joins the "cadre" of DTO. If such a process is not followed, particularly, when there is no rule or administrative instructions giving the Government the power to change the service, one would be hunting for a place of seniority in service. Whoever, therefore, were appointed to the posts of Executive Magistrate out of the said combined merit list, they all formed a separate 'cadre' and their inter se seniority depends upon their respective merit position in the common merit list; but when such a person goes from his service to another service, he cannot claim seniority over the members of the other 'service', because his appointment to that new 'service' would be a new entry into the new 'service' and his entry into a new 'service' or 'cadre' cannot, therefore, give him the right to claim seniority over others, who had already become members of the service to which he has subsequently entered. 63. 63. Had Bipulananda Pathak been appointed later than K.C. Hazarika to the cadre of DTO directly from the combined merit list without being first appointed to APS, he would have been treated senior to K.C. Hazarika, because his position, in the merit list, was 26; whereas K.C. Hazarika's position was 176; but when Bipulananda Pathak comes from the APS to the "cadre" of DTO, he cannot fall back upon the combined merit list for the purpose of claiming seniority over K.C. Hazarika or else, there would be no consistency in the inter se seniority in any 'cadre' and the seniority would remain fluctuating depending upon who decides to come into which 'service' or 'cadre' and at what point of time. Such a fluctuating system of seniority is contrary to the service jurisprudence, which demands consistency in matters of seniority so that people know beforehand as to where they stand in terms of their respective seniority and that their seniority would not be disturbed except in accordance with law. Bringing a person from one service to another, particularly, when rules holding the field do not provide for transfer of service, has to be treated as a fresh appointment and, therefore, one cannot be allowed to carry his seniority without the rules permitting such a system. 64. Bearing in mind the above cardinal principle, let me, now, proceed and enter into the case of Kushal Chandra Hazarika vis-a-vis the cases of J.C. Handique and Bipulalanda Pathak. 65. As far as K.C. Hazarika is concerned, his case is relatively simpler. Following the combined competitive examination held pursuant to the advertisement, dated 08.09.1981, published by the Assam Public Service Commission, the merit list was published on 26.7.1983, wherein he was placed at Serial No. 176; whereas Bipulalanda Pathak and J.C. Handique were placed at Serial Nos. 26 and 46 respectively. Subsequent to the publication of the said merit list, Assam Transport Service Rules came into force on 07.10.1983. While J.C. Handique came to be appointed as Executive Magistrate on 13.2.84, Bipulananda Pathak was appointed to the Assam Police Service with effect from the date of his joining i.e. 01.06.84. 66. Thus, both, J.C. Handique as well as Bipulananda Pathak, had become members of the "cadres" of the Executive Magistrate and of Deputy Superintendent of Police respectively. While J.C. Handique came to be appointed as Executive Magistrate on 13.2.84, Bipulananda Pathak was appointed to the Assam Police Service with effect from the date of his joining i.e. 01.06.84. 66. Thus, both, J.C. Handique as well as Bipulananda Pathak, had become members of the "cadres" of the Executive Magistrate and of Deputy Superintendent of Police respectively. Having accepted their appointments to the said two "cadre", J.C. Handique and Bipulananda Pathak could have had no legal right to claim appointment to the "cadre" of DTO. It is in such circumstances that K. C. Hazarika came to be appointed on 23.06.84 and pursuant to the appointment so received, he joined as DTO on 23.06.1984 itself. 67. Moreover, at the time, when K.C. Hazarika joined as DTO, there was no vacant post of DTO. This assertion of K.C. Hazarika, made in his writ petition, remains undisputed by the State Government, though it was the State Government, which was in the best position to say as to whether this averment of K.C. Hazarika, made in his writ petition, was or was not true. In the absence of any denial by the Government that there was not more than one post of DTO at the relevant point of time, it is difficult to ignore the said assertion of K.C. Hazarika. 68. Be that as it may, Bipulananda Pathak has disputed the fact that there was only one post of DTO; but what is the basis for making such a statement, when the Government is silent in this regard, has not been disclosed by Bipulananda Pathak. In the face of the silence maintained by the Government, one has to proceed on the premises that at the time, when K.C. Hazarika came to be appointed as DTO, there was one post of DTO vacant. Even otherwise, the fact of the matter remains that it was from the combined merit list itself that K.C. Hazarika was directly recruited to the "cadre" of DTO; whereas Bipulananda Pathak as well as J.C. Handique had entered into the "cadre" of DTO from their, originally, recruited "cadres', namely, the "cadre" of Executive Magistrate as far as J.C. Handique is concerned and the "cadre" of Deputy Superintendent of Police as far as Bipulananda Pathak is concerned. 69. It has been submitted by Mr. 69. It has been submitted by Mr. Mishra that Bipulananda Pathak had given an option for appointment as DTO and he was found by the Selection Committee suitable for appointment to the post of DTO as well as Superintendent of Taxes and, hence, while accepting his appointment as DSP(probationary), Bipulananda Pathak applied to the Government for change in his service by making him a DTO and the Government, having accordingly agreed, the appointment of Bipulananda Pathak, in the "cadre" of DTO, shall be governed by his merit position in the combined merit list. 70. While considering the above submission of Mr. Mishra, it needs to be noted that though there is a remark in the select list, as against Bipulananda Pathak, that he has been found more suitable for Superintendent of Taxes/DTO, the fact of the matter remains that such remarks are not found mentioned, in the said merit list, against each and every candidate. This apart, the authenticity of the said remarks could not be established. Notwithstanding the fact that authenticity of the remarks could not be established, the fact of the matter remains that since each of the candidates had not been given the remark as to what 'service' he or she was suitable for, the mere fact that there was a remark against the name of Bipulananda Pathak that he was found more suitable for the post of Superintendent of Taxes/DTO, such a remark can be given no importance at all, when Bipulananda Pathak was not appointed as DTO or Superintendent of Taxes, but was appointed as a member of the Assam Police Service and he had accepted the said appointment without reservation, protest or objection. What he merely did, while joining as a member of the Assam Police Service, was to make a representation to the Government seeking to be appointed as a DTO and it is this request, which was, later on, agreed to by the State Government. This change, which the Government made, cannot be regarded as correcting the wrong, which the Government had allegedly done. In other words, in the absence of anything showing to the contrary, the mere fact, that the Government accepted Bipulananda Pathak's request for appointment as DTO, cannot cloth Bipulananda Pathak with the right to claim that the Government has undone the wrong, which it had done by appointing him as the DTO. In other words, in the absence of anything showing to the contrary, the mere fact, that the Government accepted Bipulananda Pathak's request for appointment as DTO, cannot cloth Bipulananda Pathak with the right to claim that the Government has undone the wrong, which it had done by appointing him as the DTO. This apart, notwithstanding the remark to the effect that Bipulananda Pathak had been adjudged more suitable for Superintendent of Taxes/DTO, the fact of the matter remains that the Government, as already discussed above, given the offer of appointment to Bipulananda Pathak as DSP and Bipulananda Pathak did accept the offer without reservation, objection or protest and joined the Police Training College as was required and came to be, eventually, appointed by virtue of the notification, dated 20.06.84, as Deputy Superintendent of Police (Probationary) with effect from 01.06.1984. 71. Thus, Bipulananda Pathak had voluntarily become a member of the Assam Police Service and a member of the "cadre" of the DSP (Probationary). Though before joining, on 01.06.84, as DSP (Probationary), Bipulananda Pathak is shown to have applied to the Government for appointment as DTO by his application, dated 30.05.84, the fact of the matter remains that Bipulananda Pathak did voluntarily join and became, as indicated hereinbefore, a member of the Assam Police Service. Having become a member of the Assam Police Service, he could not have been appointed as DTO without his being released from the Assam Police Service. No wonder, therefore, that the Department of Personnel (A), Government of Assam, informed Bipulananda Pathak by W.T. Message, dated 13.6.84, that he may be posted as a District Transport Officer provided that he was released by the Home Department. 72. Thus, the offer of appointment of Bipulananda Pathak to the post of DTO was, as reflected by the W.T. message, dated 13.6.84, conditional and it was only on 26.6.84 that the Government of Assam, Home Department::: (A) Branch, issued the letter, dated 26.6.84 releasing Bipulananda Pathak with effect from the date he handed over charge for appointment as DTO. Without, therefore, handing over charge, as indicated in the letter, dated 26.6.84, aforementioned, Bipulananda Pathak could not have joined as DTO. He claims to have handed over charge on 2nd July, 1984, and joined as DTO on 3.7.84. 73. Without, therefore, handing over charge, as indicated in the letter, dated 26.6.84, aforementioned, Bipulananda Pathak could not have joined as DTO. He claims to have handed over charge on 2nd July, 1984, and joined as DTO on 3.7.84. 73. As against the case of Bipulananda Pathak, which I have depicted above, K.C. Hazarika was, admittedly, appointed, on 23.06.84, as DTO and joined accordingly on that very day. Thus, K.C. Hazarika came to be appointed as DTO even before the Home Department had released Bipulananda Pathak from the post of DSP (Probationary). Bipulananda Pathak cannot, therefore, claim seniority over K.C. Hazarika, because Bipulananda Pathak was, before his appointment as DTO, a member of the Assam Police Service and, in the light of the discussions, which we have already held above, his entry into the "cadre" of DTO was a new entry, subsequent to the entry of K.C. Hazarika. 74. Hence, Bipulananda Pathak, if I may repeat, could not have been regarded, and cannot be regarded, as senior to K.C. Hazarika. Both J.C. Handique and Bipulananda Pathak ought to have, therefore, been treated as junior to K.C. Hazarika and as far as the inter se seniority between J.C. Handique and Bipulananda Pathak is concerned, the same has obviously been resolved, as discussed above, in favour of Bipulananda Pathak treating him as senior to J.C. Handique. 75. Though it has been contended by Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for Bipulananda Pathak, that by appointing Bipulananda Pathak as DTO, the Government had undone the wrong, which it had committed by appointing Bipulananda Pathak, against his option, as a member of the Assam Police Service, the fact of the matter remains that there is not even an iota of material on record to show that the Government had, at any stage, realized that it ought to have appointed, but had not appointed, Bipulananda Pathak as DTO. Had the appointment of Bipulananda Pathak by the Government as DTO been as a corrective measure of the wrong, which it had committed, it would have been reflected from the materials on record. In the absence of any such material, Bipulananda Pathak's appointment as DTO cannot but be treated as a new appointment made on the request of Bipulananda Pathak himself and not as a measure of correction of the wrong allegedly done by the Government. 76. In the absence of any such material, Bipulananda Pathak's appointment as DTO cannot but be treated as a new appointment made on the request of Bipulananda Pathak himself and not as a measure of correction of the wrong allegedly done by the Government. 76. Thus, when Bipulananda Pathak had opted to leave his original appointment to the "cadre" of DSP and go to new "cadre" of DTO, he cannot claim seniority over the members of the "cadre" of DTO by referring to his position in the combined merit list inasmuch as the merit list, for the purpose of Bipulananda Pathak, governed him, when he was a member of the "cadre" of DSP. The inter se seniority of the 12 persons (including Bipulananda Pathak) who came to be appointed to the Assam Police Service, with effect from 1.6.84, by virtue of the notification, dated 20.6.84, was to be governed, and would be governed, by their respective positions in the combined merit list; but when Bipulananda Pathak, having opted to leave Assam Police Service, went to join as a direct recruit to the "cadre" of DTO, he could not have carried his seniority position, in the merit list, to the new "cadre", which he was entering into, because he cannot be allowed to gain seniority over those persons, who had already become members of the "cadre" of DTO. Bipulananda Pathak, therefore, became junior to K.C. Hazarika, though he had occupied higher position in the combined merit list. 77. Mr. M. K. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for K. C. Hazarika, is not incorrect, when he places reliance on State of Maharashtra v. Purshottam and Ors. reported in (1996) 9 SCC 266 , wherein the Supreme Court has clearly pointed out that "in the service jurisprudence, the expression "cadre" means the unit or strength of a service or a part of it as determined by the employer. And it is too well settled that services rendered by an employee, in one "cadre", cannot be taken into account for determining the seniority in another "cadre" unless by any rules of seniority, this privilege is conferred." Logically extended, it would mean that whatever might have been the period of service rendered by Bipulananda Pathak in the Assam Police Service, the said period cannot be counted for the purpose of determining his seniority in the "service" as DTO. He was a new entrant to the "cadre" of DTO and he cannot pick and choose his own "cadre" and claim also seniority, while entering a new "cadre" over those, who already constituted the "cadre" of DTO. 78. The W.T. message, dated 16th June, 1984, has to be treated as a conditional offer of appointment inasmuch as the W.T. message made it clear that Bipulananda Pathak can be appointed as DTO provided the Home Department releases him. So long as this condition was not fulfilled, there was no absolute offer of appointment. It was only on 26.06.84 that the Home Department agreed to release Bipulananda Pathak, but from the date Bipulananda Pathak hands over charge. Thus, the absolute offer of appointment, as far as Bipulananda Pathak, is concerned, materialized on 26.06.84, three days after K.C. Hazarika had already joined the "cadre" of DTO inasmuch as K.C. Hazarika was appointed and joined as DTO on 23.6.84. Naturally, Bipulananda Pathak joined on a later date i.e. 3.7.84. By no logical extension of any argument, K.C. Hazarika can, therefore, be treated as junior to Bipulananda Pathak and/or J.C. Handique. 79. Mr. M. K. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel, is also not incorrect as he refers to the case of Kulwant Kr. Sood vs. State of H.P. and another, reported in (2005)10 SCC 670 , wherein the principle laid down is that a person has to be assigned his seniority from the date of his absorption or transfer so that he cannot steal a march over the existing employees. By choosing to come to the "cadre" of DTO, on his own volition, Bipulananda Pathak or J.C. Handique cannot claim seniority over those, who were already member of the "cadre" of DTO. 80. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, it is hereby held that K.C. Hazarika shall be treated as senior to Bipulananda Pathak and J.C. Handique and as far as the inter se seniority between Bipulananda Pathak and J.C. Handique is concerned, Bipulananda Pathak shall be treated as senior to J.C. Handique in the "cadre" of DTO. The impugned order, dated 09.09.2003, passed by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, Department of Transport, is accordingly set aside and quashed and the State Respondents are hereby directed to draw up the gradation list in terms of the observations made and directions given above. 81. The impugned order, dated 09.09.2003, passed by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, Department of Transport, is accordingly set aside and quashed and the State Respondents are hereby directed to draw up the gradation list in terms of the observations made and directions given above. 81. Both the writ petitions shall stand disposed of in terms of the observations made, and directions given, in the preceding paragraphs. 82. No order as to cost. 83. D1. when Bipulananda Pathak was not appointed as DTO or Superintendent of Taxes, but was appointed as a member of the Assam Police Service and he had accepted the said appointment without reservation, protest or objection. What he merely did, while joining as a member of the Assam Police Service, was to make a representation to the Government seeking to be appointed as a DTO and it is this request, which was, later on, agreed to by the State Government. This change, which the Government made, cannot be regarded as correcting the wrong, which the Government had admittedly done. In other words, in the absence of anything showing to the contrary, the mere fact that the Government accepted Bipulananda Pathak's request for appointment as DTO, it cannot cloth Bipulananda Pathak with the right to claim that the Government has undone the wrong, which it had done by appointing him as the DTO. 84. The Tribunal's order holding Bipulananda Pathak senior to J.C. Handique having attained finality, the same cannot be reopened and/or questioned again, particularly, when the writ petition filed, against the said order of the Tribunal, also stands dismissed and the dismissal order, passed in the writ petition, was not sought to get reviewed nor has the dismissal questioned or challenged. Petition dismissed.