Ujjal Bhuyan, J. The issue raised in both the writ petitions being interrelated, W.P. (C) Nos. 884/2008 and 354/2008 were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. Though 03.06.2013 was fixed for delivery of judgment, judgment could not be delivered on that day as this Bench was not available. Accordingly, judgment is being delivered today. 2. The matter relates to assignment of seniority position in the inter-se-seniority list of Executive Engineers (Civil) in the Public Works Department (PWD), Government of Assam and consideration for promotion to the next higher post of Superintending Engineer (Civil). 3. For the sake of convenience, the facts narrated in W.P. (C) No. 884/2008 are referred to. 4. Case of the petitioner is that after obtaining graduation in Engineering (BE) and on being selected, he joined as Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the PWD on 04.01.1984. In the course of his service career, he was promoted to the rank of Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) on 10.01.1994 and thereafter to the rank of Executive Engineer (Civil) on 02.06.2004. 5. The service conditions of the members of the Assam Engineering (PWD) Service are governed by a set of rules called the Assam Engineering (PWD) Service Rules, 1978 (1978 Rules), which has been amended from time to time. Rule 3 of the 1978 Rules provides for the classes and cadres which comprise the Assam Engineering (PWD) Service. Class-1 service includes the cadre of Executive Engineer whereas Class-1 (Senior Grade) service includes the cadre of Superintending Engineer. As per Rule 5 (2), recruitment to Class-1 and Class-1 (Senior Grade) shall be made by promotion only in accordance with Rules 12 and 13. Rule 12 provides the manner of promotion which includes promotion from Executive Engineer to Superintending Engineer. 6. Rule 13 lays down the general procedure for promotion. As per sub-rule (1), before the end of each year, the Government is required to make an assessment of the likely number of vacancies in each cadre to be filled up by way of promotion in the next year. Thereafter, the appointing authority shall furnish to the Selection Board a list of officers in order of seniority four times the number of vacancies assessed alongwith the required documents and information including the character rolls of the officers. The Selection Board shall recommend a list of suitable officers for promotion in order of preference. Thereafter, the appointing authority shall furnish to the Selection Board a list of officers in order of seniority four times the number of vacancies assessed alongwith the required documents and information including the character rolls of the officers. The Selection Board shall recommend a list of suitable officers for promotion in order of preference. Promotion upto the rank of Superintending Engineer shall be on the basis of merit and suitability with due regard to seniority and promotion above the rank of Superintending Engineer is on the basis of merit cum seniority. The Selection Board shall furnish to the appointing authority a select list of officers about double the probable number of vacancies in order of preference found suitable for promotion. Thereafter, the appointing authority shall consider the select list and may approve the same unless it considers any change necessary. The select list shall remain valid for twelve months. 7. Following a judgment of this Court in Ramen Kalita & Ors. v. State of Assam & Ors. reported in 2003 (3) GLT 369, Government of Assam in the PWD issued notification dated 28.04.2003 laying down the criteria and methodology for promotion upto the rank of Superintending Engineer. As already noticed above, the criteria for promotion upto the rank of Superintending Engineer is merit and suitability with due regard to seniority. The following points are allocated for evaluation of merit based on the final accepted remarks in the Annual Confidential Reports:-- Below average - 0 point Average - 1 point Good - 2 points Very Good - 3 points Outstanding - 4 points The total points against each officer in the zone of consideration is to be calculated on the basis of the guidelines considering Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for a period of five years. For promotion from the rank of Executive Engineer to the rank of Superintending Engineer, there will be three categories- Category 1 - 18 and above Category 2 - 10 to below 18 Category 3 - Below 10 Category 3 shall not be eligible to be suitable for promotion. Category 1 and 2 shall be eligible to be suitable for promotion. The appointing authority shall also allocate points for seniority in addition to the points allocated for merit in the following proportion - 75% points shall be allocated for merit and remaining 25% for seniority. Category 1 and 2 shall be eligible to be suitable for promotion. The appointing authority shall also allocate points for seniority in addition to the points allocated for merit in the following proportion - 75% points shall be allocated for merit and remaining 25% for seniority. An officer shall obtain a maximum of 20 points on merit which is equivalent to 75% and 6.66 points for seniority which will be 25%. Officers having completed 30 years of service or above shall be entitled to 6.66 points and for each completed year of service 0.22 points shall be allocated. According to the total points secured, the officers shall be categorized into two classes:-- Class A and Class B For promotion from Assistant Executive Engineer to Executive Engineer, to be categorized as Class A one will have to secure 21.3 points and above and to be categorized as Class B, one will have to secure between 11.3 to below 21.3 points. Class A will get preference over Class B and inter-se seniority within Class A will remain unchanged. Similarly, for promotion from Executive Engineer to Superintending Engineer, the categorization is as follows:-- Class A - 21.96 and above Class B -13.96 to below 21.96 Class A will get preference over Class B and inter-se seniority within Class A will remain unchanged. As per the said notification, the 1978 Rules alongwith the judgment of this Court in Ramen Kalita and the said notification dated 28.04.2003 shall be binding on the appointing authority and the Selection Board for selection for promotion in the PWD. 8. For the year 2004, the appointing authority had assessed the probable number of vacancies in the rank of Executive Engineer (Civil) at 28. Service records of 112 numbers of Assistant Executive Engineers (Civil), which is the feeder cadre for the post of Executive Engineer, were placed before the Selection Board for consideration, being four times the number of vacancies (28 × 4-112). Petitioner was placed at Serial No. 110 in the gradation list of Assistant Executive Engineers (Civil). Petitioner and another officer, namely, Shri Jyotish Kumar Sarmah were recommended for promotion to the rank of Executive Engineer (Civil) under Class A category whereas the private respondents 8 to 33 were selected under Class B category. Petitioner was placed at Serial No. 110 in the gradation list of Assistant Executive Engineers (Civil). Petitioner and another officer, namely, Shri Jyotish Kumar Sarmah were recommended for promotion to the rank of Executive Engineer (Civil) under Class A category whereas the private respondents 8 to 33 were selected under Class B category. The selected candidates, including the petitioner, were thereafter promoted to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) vide the notification dated 02.06.2004 issued by the Commissioner and Special Secretary to the Government of Assam. PWD. While the petitioner and Shri Jyotish Kumar Sarmah were promoted to the rank of Executive Engineer (Civil) on being placed in Class A category, respondents 8 to 33 were also promoted to the rank of Executive Engineer (Civil) though they were placed in Class B. 9. Government of Assam in the PWD had issued a notification dated 06.09.2007 fixing the inter-se seniority of the Executive Engineers (Civil) of the Department. In the said inter-se seniority list, respondent Nos. 8 to 33 were placed above the petitioner and Shri Jyotish Kumar Sarmah. While respondent Nos. 8 to 33 were placed at Serial Nos. 79 to 104, Shri Jyotish Kumar Sarmah and the petitioner were placed at Serial Nos. 105 and 106 respectively. 10. Petitioner submitted representation dated 15.10.2007 before the Secretary to the Government of Assam, PWD requesting the said authority to correctly fix his seniority position as he was promoted under Class A category and, therefore, he should be placed above those who were promoted under Class B category. This was followed by further representations dated 02.01.2008 and 22.2.2008 wherein petitioner contended that his position in the seniority list should be 79 below Shri Jyotish Kumar Sarmah and above respondent No. 8 (since the incumbent at Serial No. 32 of the seniority list dated 06.09.2007 Mosfic Ali had expired in the meanwhile). 11. In the meanwhile, for the year 2007, the appointing authority had assessed the probable number of vacancies in the rank of Superintending Engineer (Civil) at 27. which included 20 clear vacancies and the remaining anticipated vacancies on account of retirement. For filling up the said vacancies, the appointing authority furnished a list of 108 numbers of Executive Engineers in order of seniority for consideration, being four times the number of vacancies (27 x 4 = 108). which included 20 clear vacancies and the remaining anticipated vacancies on account of retirement. For filling up the said vacancies, the appointing authority furnished a list of 108 numbers of Executive Engineers in order of seniority for consideration, being four times the number of vacancies (27 x 4 = 108). Petitioner being placed at Serial No. 106 of the seniority list dated 06.09.2007 was also included within the zone of consideration. 12. Selection Board meeting was held on 19.11.2007 for selection of officers from Executive Engineer (Civil) to Superintending Engineer (Civil). The Selection Board recommended 59 officers for promotion to the rank of Superintending Engineer. The first four candidates were placed under Class A category as they had secured more than 21.96 points from merit and seniority. The rest of the 55 candidates recommended were placed in Class B category as they had secured between 13.96 points to below 21.96 points from merit and seniority. Petitioner was placed under Class A category and he was selected at serial No. 3 of the select list dated 19.11.2007. 13. However, it appears that because of the Government decision dated 30.11.2007 to enhance the retirement age of its employees and officers by one year, the officers who were to retire in the year 2007 continued in service for another year, thereby reducing the number of vacancies for the year 2007 from 27 to 20. 14. At that stage, the petitioner moved this Court by filing WP (C) No. 354/2008 with the prayer for re-fixation of his seniority position at Serial No. 79 in the gradation list of Executive Engineers (Civil) dated 06.09.2007. Petitioner had contended that in view of reduction in the number of vacancies from 27 to 20, he would not come within the zone of consideration as per his present seniority position which would be upto Serial No. 80 (20 x 4 - 80) unless his seniority position is corrected and he is placed at Serial No. 79 in the seniority list. This Court by order dated 30.01.2008 admitted the writ petition and directed in the interim that one post of Superintending Engineer for which selections were stated to have been held in the month of November, 2007 be kept vacant to abide by such further orders as may be passed in the writ petition. 15. This Court by order dated 30.01.2008 admitted the writ petition and directed in the interim that one post of Superintending Engineer for which selections were stated to have been held in the month of November, 2007 be kept vacant to abide by such further orders as may be passed in the writ petition. 15. Joint Legal Remembrancer, Assam had opined that selection for 27 vacancies had already being completed prior to the Government decision extending the age of retirement. Therefore, reduction in the number of vacancies would not vitiate the selection or the select list. 16. However, ignoring the opinion of the Joint Legal Remembrancer and notwithstanding pendency of WP (C) No. 354/2008, the authority constituted a new Selection Board to fill up 20 vacancies in the rank of Superintending Engineer (Civil). Accordingly, names of 80 Executive Engineers (Civil), being four times the number of vacancies, were placed before the Selection Board. As the petitioner's seniority position was not corrected and his position remained at Serial No. 106, he did not come within the zone of consideration. Selection Board meeting was held on 19.02.2008 and recommendations were made accordingly. 17. Aggrieved, petitioner has filed the present writ petition for quashing of Selection Board proceedings dated 19.02.2008 for promotion to the rank of Superintending Engineer (Civil) and for a direction to the State respondents to correctly determine his seniority position in the cadre of Executive Engineer (Civil) by placing him at Serial No. 79 and thereafter to hold fresh selection for the 20 vacancies of Superintending Engineer (Civil) for the year 2007. 18. This Court by order dated 10.03.2008 admitted the writ petition and directed in the interim that one post of Superintending Engineer, PWD (Civil) be kept vacant to abide by such further orders as may be passed by the Court. 19. Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have filed a common affidavit. Stand taken is that the department had assessed the number of vacancies in the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) for the year 2004 at 28. The zone of consideration was, therefore, upto serial No. 112 (28 x 4= 112) in order of seniority in the seniority list of Assistant Executive Engineers (Civil). Position of the petitioner in the inter-se seniority list of Assistant Executive Engineers (Civil) was 110. The zone of consideration was, therefore, upto serial No. 112 (28 x 4= 112) in order of seniority in the seniority list of Assistant Executive Engineers (Civil). Position of the petitioner in the inter-se seniority list of Assistant Executive Engineers (Civil) was 110. Selection Board had recommended 50 Assistant Executive Engineers for promotion to the rank of Executive Engineer in order of preference. Petitioner was not recommended. The ACR position of the petitioner indicated that though he had "outstanding" grading for the years 1999, 2002 and 2003, he remained absent during the years 2000 and 2001. Therefore, he could not be awarded any grading for the said two years. However, the Commissioner and Special Secretary, PWD included the name of the petitioner at Serial No. 51 under Class A category in the select list and vide letter dated 15-05-2004 requested the Selection Board for opinion. In response, Chairman of the Selection Board vide letter dated 17.05.2004 opined that placing of the petitioner at Serial No. 51 in the selection list under Class A category would not be justified. However, notwithstanding such opinion, notification dated 20.05.2004 was issued by the Commissioner and Special Secretary approving the select list of 51 officers for promotion to the rank of Executive Engineer in order of preference. Petitioner was included at Serial No. 51 under Class A category. Consequently, petitioner was promoted to the rank of Executive Engineer alongwith the others vide the notification dated 02.06.2004. The said respondents would therefore contend that the promotion of the petitioner from the rank of Assistant Executive Engineer to the rank of Executive Engineer is "questionable". As such, the said respondents have controverted the claim of the petitioner as not "bonafide". 20. A common counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 8 to 33. The said respondents have contended that petitioner was abroad for two years and 196 days (total 926 days) w.e.f. 01.05.1998 to 28.12.1998 and from 21.03.1999 to 08.02.2001 by availing leave under various heads. Moreover, there is no explanation in the record regarding the period from 28.12.1998 to 21.03.1999. They have contended that for the two years the petitioner was absent, no assessment of his service could have been made. If no grading is given for the said two years, it is unlikely that the petitioner could have been placed in Class A category. Moreover, there is no explanation in the record regarding the period from 28.12.1998 to 21.03.1999. They have contended that for the two years the petitioner was absent, no assessment of his service could have been made. If no grading is given for the said two years, it is unlikely that the petitioner could have been placed in Class A category. As such, inclusion of the petitioner in the select list for promotion to the rank of Executive Engineer is faulty. Therefore, appointing authority had rightly placed the petitioner at Serial No. 106 in the gradation list dated 06.09.2007 below the respondent Nos. 8 to 33. 21. Petitioner has filed separate reply affidavits to the counter affidavits filed by the state respondents as well as by the private respondents. In the reply affidavit filed to the counter affidavit of the state respondents, petitioner has stated that the Selection Board had not recommended the petitioner for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer without any good ground. Commissioner and Special Secretary rightly acted under Rule 13(6) of the 1978 Rules and modified the select list by including the name of the petitioner therein under Class A category by following the prescribed procedure. Consequently, petitioner was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer on 02.06.2004. The attempt now being made by the state respondents to describe the selection and promotion of the petitioner to the post of Executive Engineer as questionable is not only improper but also beyond jurisdiction. The stand of the state respondents is irrelevant for adjudication of the issue in question. Petitioner has asserted that his claim is bonafide and deserves consideration. 22. In his reply affidavit to the counter affidavit of the private respondents, petitioner has contended that the said respondents have no right to question his selection and promotion to the post of Executive Engineer in the present proceeding instituted by him, that too, at this belated stage. His selection and promotion to the post of Executive Engineer was made by following the due procedure. His said promotion was not questioned by any body and the matter had got settled. His selection and promotion to the post of Executive Engineer was made by following the due procedure. His said promotion was not questioned by any body and the matter had got settled. He has also stated that it is the prevailing practice in the department that if for any reason grading in the ACRs of an officer for a particular period is not possible, the ACR gradings of the preceding and succeeding years of the officer concerned are taken into consideration and an average grading is given for the particular period. For the two years when he was abroad, the authority had followed the said principle and as his grading was "outstanding" for the other three years, he was given the grading "Very good" for the said two years. Consequently, by allocating points as per notification dated 28.04.2003, petitioner was placed in Class A category, which was rightly done. Since he was placed in Class A category, he is entitled to be placed above respondent Nos. 8 to 33 in the seniority list as they were placed under Class B category. Therefore, placement of the petitioner at Serial No. 106 in the gradation list of Executive Engineers dated 06.09.2007 below respondent Nos. 8 to 33 is illegal. 23. Heard Mr. K.K. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Saikia, learned Standing Counsel, PWD. Also heard Mr. U.K. Nair, learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 8 to 33. 24. Mr. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner's promotion to the rank of Executive Engineer under Class A category was made in the year 2004. The same was not challenged by any body. Consequently, it has attained finality. In any case, it was rightly done by applying the correct procedure. As per the departmental norms laid down in the notification dated 28.04.2003, petitioner being promoted under Class A category is required to be placed above those who were promoted under Class B category i.e. respondents Nos. 8 to 33. Such seniority position cannot be denied to the petitioner by taking the wholly untenable plea of his promotion from Assistant Executive Engineer to Executive Engineer as questionable. Petitioner's representations have also not been responded to by the authority. 8 to 33. Such seniority position cannot be denied to the petitioner by taking the wholly untenable plea of his promotion from Assistant Executive Engineer to Executive Engineer as questionable. Petitioner's representations have also not been responded to by the authority. He contends that as per the binding guidelines contained in the notification dated 28.04.2003, petitioner should be placed at Serial No. 79 in the seniority list of Executive Engineers (Civil) which would bring him within the zone of consideration for selection for promotion to the 20 vacancies in the rank of Superintending Engineer (Civil) for the year 2007. He, therefore, submits that necessary direction in this regard may be issued by this Court which will meet the ends of justice. 25. Mr. S. Saikia, learned Standing Counsel has placed before the Court a bunch of papers, including the minutes of the Selection Board's meeting held on 19.02.2008 for selection of officers for promotion from Executive Engineer (Civil) to the rank of Superintending Engineer (Civil) for the year 2007. The Selection Board recommended 39 officers in order of preference for promotion to the rank of Superintending Engineer. Learned departmental Counsel submits that since there is doubt about the correctness of the decision taken by the appointing authority to include the petitioner in the selection list as a Class A category and thereafter promoting him to the rank of Executive Engineer, the authority is justified in placing the petitioner at Serial No. 106 in the seniority list of Executive Engineers (Civil) below the respondents 8 to 33. 26. Mr. U.K. Nair, learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 8 to 33 has taken a technical plea that when the first case is pending, petitioner could not have filed the second case seeking almost identical relief. He also adopts the stand taken by the departmental counsel to contend that no gradings could not have been given to the petitioner for the two consecutive years when he was abroad as because to arrive at an average assessment, the gradings of the preceding and succeeding years are to be considered but in this case, if the grading of the preceding year is available, the same is not available for the succeeding year and vice versa for the two missing years. Therefore, petitioner could not have been graded "very good" for those two years, which has influenced the total points secured by the petitioner resulting in his placement under Class A category. Since petitioner was wrongly selected by the appointing authority against the opinion of the Selection Board by placing him in Class A category and thereafter promoting him to the rank of Executive Engineer, the state respondents are justified in not assigning him a higher position above respondent Nos. 8 to 33 in the seniority list of Executive Engineers (Civil). 27. Submissions made have been considered. 28. As has already been noticed above. the criteria for selection for promotion to the rank of Superintending Engineer is on the basis of merit and suitability with due regard to seniority. The aforesaid expression was examined by this Court in Ramen Chandra Kalita (supra). This Court held that the correct meaning of the expression "merit and suitability with due regard to seniority" having regard to the context of the 1978 Rules as amended would be that though the criteria of merit and suitability with due regard to seniority is essentially a merit based criterion, seniority cannot altogether be ignored and has to be considered parallely alongwith merit while determining the eligibility of a candidate for his inclusion in the select list. This Court further held that though it would not be the duty of the Court to lay down the exact modalities to cover selection by application of the said criteria, it may be apposite to observe that out of the total marks earmarked for assessment, a particular percentage can be assigned to merit and the remaining percentage to seniority, the percentage prescribed for merit being necessarily higher than the percentage prescribed for seniority since the expression in question convey primarily a merit based assessment. It was also observed that what marks should be given to seniority can also be worked out by taking into account each year of completed service and on that basis the necessary fusion between merit and seniority can be reached. 29. Following the aforesaid decision of this Court, Government notification dated 28.04.2003 was issued laying down the guidelines for application of the aforesaid principle. 75% have been allocated for merit i.e. 20 points and 25% for seniority i.e. 6.66 points. 29. Following the aforesaid decision of this Court, Government notification dated 28.04.2003 was issued laying down the guidelines for application of the aforesaid principle. 75% have been allocated for merit i.e. 20 points and 25% for seniority i.e. 6.66 points. Based on the overall points secured, the officers are categorized into two classes, namely, Class A and Class B with Class A category officers getting preference over Class B category officers but inter-se seniority within Class A category remaining unchanged. 30. It is also a settled proposition that the Selection Committee is not expected to endorse the ACR gradings of a particular officer mechanically. The Selection Committee has to arrive at its own conclusion on an overall consideration of the service record of the officer concerned. There is a difference between the assessment of an officer for the purpose of grading him in his ACR by the statutorily prescribed authority and the assessment by the Selection Committee of the service profile of the particular officer for the purpose of selection. While the former is the assessment of the service of the officer for the particular period, the latter is an overall assessment of the service profile of the officer to consider his suitability for promotion. 31. In the instant case, from the bunch of papers produced by the learned Standing Counsel, it is seen that initially in the selection for promotion to the rank of Executive Engineer, petitioner was not recommended by the Selection Board The appointing authority i.e. the Commissioner and Special Secretary in his note to the departmental Minister dated 15.05.2004 observed that though in other Selection Board meetings, remarks of the preceding and succeeding years had been averaged for the missing year/years but in that particular Selection Board meeting, it was not done. Referring to the petitioner, the appointing authority observed that he had "outstanding" grading in three ACRs. According to him, petitioner is a meritorious officer and his services could be gainfully utilized by the Government Therefore, he applied the usual practice followed in the department and averaging the "outstanding" remark for the three years, awarded him "very good" for the two missing ACRs for the years 2000 and 2001. By application of the guidelines laid down in the notification dated 28.04.2003, petitioner was placed under Class A category and included in the select list for promotion to the rank of Executive Engineer. 32. By application of the guidelines laid down in the notification dated 28.04.2003, petitioner was placed under Class A category and included in the select list for promotion to the rank of Executive Engineer. 32. Rule 13(6) of the 1978 Rules as amended empowers the appointing authority to make changes in the select list forwarded by the Selection Board. However, he has to inform the Board about the proposed changes and consider the comments of the Selection Board, if any. Thereafter, he may approve the select list with such modification which he may consider just and proper. The proposal of the appointing authority for selecting the petitioner under Class A category was approved by the departmental Minister. Comments of the Selection Board were called for. Though the Selection Board did not concur with the views of the appointing authority, the latter nonetheless approved the select list of officers for promotion to the rank of Executive Engineer wherein petitioner was included under Class A category. This was by notification dated 20.05.2004, which was followed by the subsequent notification dated 02.06.2004 whereby the petitioner and the others were promoted to the rank of Executive Engineer. 33. The above notifications dated 20.05.2004 and 02.06.2004 were not challenged by anybody before any adjudicatory forum. Consequently, the same has attained finality. The fact that petitioner was selected under Class A category for promotion to the rank of Executive Engineer and subsequently promoted cannot be questioned by the respondents in a proceeding instituted by the petitioner for assignment of his seniority position based on his selection under Class A category. 34. It has already been noticed that the notification dated 28.04.2003 which has been issued on the basis of the decision of this Court in Ramen Chandra Kalita (supra), clearly provides that Class A category will get preference over Class B category but inter-se seniority within the Class A category will remain unchanged. It is an admitted position that the petitioner was selected under Class A category for promotion to the rank of Executive Engineer whereas respondents 8 to 33 were selected under Class B category. Therefore, in terms of the guidelines laid down in the notification dated 28.04.2003, petitioner has to get preference over respondents 8 to 33 in the promoted post. It is an admitted position that the petitioner was selected under Class A category for promotion to the rank of Executive Engineer whereas respondents 8 to 33 were selected under Class B category. Therefore, in terms of the guidelines laid down in the notification dated 28.04.2003, petitioner has to get preference over respondents 8 to 33 in the promoted post. In such circumstances, placement of the petitioner at serial No. 106 in the inter-se seniority list of Executive Engineers (Civil) dated 06.09.2007 below respondents 8 to 33, who have been placed at serial No. 79 to 104, is not justified. Petitioner is required to be placed above respondent No. 8 in the said gradation list. Consequent upon assignment of higher seniority position above respondent No. 8, petitioner would come within the zone of consideration for selection for promotion to the next higher rank of Superintending Engineer (Civil) against the 20 vacancies for the year 2007. 35. The objection of Mr. Nair, learned Counsel for respondents 8 to 33 as to the maintainability of the second writ petition does not appeal to the Court. While the first writ petition is for assignment of seniority position of the petitioner in the gradation list of Executive Engineers (Civil), in the second writ petition, the additional prayer made is for quashing of the Selection Board proceeding dated 19.02.2008 for promotion from the rank of Executive Engineer (Civil) to the rank of Superintending Engineer (Civil). In any case, the second writ petition was admitted for hearing by this Court on 10.03.2008. 36. Accordingly and in view of the discussions made above, the two writ petitions are allowed. State respondents are directed to correct the seniority position of the petitioner in the inter-se seniority list of Executive Engineers (Civil) by placing him above respondent No. 8. Since this Court while admitting the writ petitions had directed that one post of Superintending Engineer (Civil) be kept vacant to abide by further orders of this Court, in view of the preceding direction for upward revision of his seniority position which brings him into the zone of consideration for promotion to the rank of Superintending Engineer (Civil) for the year 2007, the State respondents shall constitute a Selection Board to consider promotion of the petitioner to the said vacancy in the rank of Superintending Engineer (Civil) for the year 2007. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from today. 37. Both the writ petitions are disposed of. No cost. __