Massodi, J.— 1. S/Shri Sanjeev Kumar and Ajay Kumar—contesting respondents in Letters Patent Appeals on hand, filed writ petitions registered as SWP Nos. 1909/2009 and 1911/2009 before the Court, for a direction to the appellants to depute them for Para-Medical Training Course. The case set up by the writ petitioners/respondents was that they were working as Class IV employees in Health and Family Welfare Department and had requisite qualification and eligibility required for deputation to the Para-Medical Training Course. They complained that their similarly placed colleagues arrayed as respondents in the writ petitions were sent on deputation for the training course, while they were singled out for hostile discrimination. The writ Court vide order dated 22nd October, 2009 disposed of the petitions by two separate orders, in terms of the orders passed in earlier petitions SWP Nos. 1848/2004 and 1352/2006. 2. The order of Learned Single Judge dated 22nd October, 2009 is questioned in the Letters Patent Appeals, on hand on similar grounds, as urged in the petitions. Both the appeals are, therefore, are taken up together for final disposal. 3. We have gone through the appeals, writ Court orders as also the writ records and have heard counsel for the parties. 4. It is important to note that the order dated 22nd October, 2009 was a consent order. Learned counsel for the appellants did not oppose the prayer for disposal of the writ petitions in terms of order passed in SWP Nos. 1848/2004 and 1352/2006. The argument that the Government counsel representing the appellants was not present before the writ Court and the concession was extended by another Government counsel and, therefore, the concession was extended un-authorizedly, does not sound convincing. This apart, the record relied upon by learned counsel for the appellants, belies the stand taken in the appeals. 5. It is not denied that the respondents deputed for Para-Medical Training Course were Matriculates like the writ petitioners/respondents. The contention that the respondents belonged to Health and Medical Education Department does not change complexion of the matter. It needs to be pointed out that in terms of Government Order No. 587-HME of 1999 dated 11th November, 1999, only such of the Class IV employees of Health and Medical education Department were to be deputed for Para-medical Training Course, who had 10+2 with Science qualification to their credit. It needs to be pointed out that in terms of Government Order No. 587-HME of 1999 dated 11th November, 1999, only such of the Class IV employees of Health and Medical education Department were to be deputed for Para-medical Training Course, who had 10+2 with Science qualification to their credit. In the circumstances, even if, it is assumed that the respondents deputed for the Para-medical Training Course belonged to Health and Medical Education Department, they were not entitled to be deputed for such training as they did not satisfy the eligibility criteria laid down in the aforesaid Government Order. The appellants nonetheless deputed the respondents for the Paramedical Training Course. It is in the said backdrop that the Court while disposing of SWP Nos. 1848/2004 and 1352/2006 observed that the petitioners before the writ Court were entitled to be given the same treatment as their similarly situated colleagues deputed for the training. 6. Mrs. Goswami, learned DAG argues that the Government has now relaxed the eligibility criteria in case of Class IV employees of Health and Medical Education Department and in terms of the revised Government Order, even Matriculates Class IV employees in Health and Medical Education can be deputed for the Para-medical Training Course. The argument does not, in any manner, brighten up the chances of the appellants' case for the simple reason that the Court has to rely upon the rules occupying the field on the relevant date and not any Government Order or instructions issued after the writ petitions were disposed of. 7. It is next argued by learned counsel for the appellants that the writ Court order dated 22nd October, 2009 cannot be used by the respondents/writ petitioners to steal a march over their seniors in the Health and Family Welfare Department. Elaborating on the arguments learned counsel points out that the respondent/writ petitioner - Sanjeev Kumar figures at serial No. 18 in the seniority list of Matriculate Class IV and Safaiwala employees in district Jammu while the respondent/writ petitioner - Ajay Kumar figures at serial No. 30 in the said seniority list. Learned counsel for the appellants argues that the respondents/writ petitioners cannot be deputed for the training course over the head of their seniors. There is merit in the appellants' stand. It needs to be noticed that the respondents/writ petitioners did not implead their seniors as respondents in the writ petitions. Learned counsel for the appellants argues that the respondents/writ petitioners cannot be deputed for the training course over the head of their seniors. There is merit in the appellants' stand. It needs to be noticed that the respondents/writ petitioners did not implead their seniors as respondents in the writ petitions. In the said circumstances, their seniors, if any, in the department cannot be taken by the surprise and their rights prejudicially affected without affording them an opportunity to project their stand. 8. Against the above backdrop, the appeals are disposed of with the observation that consideration accorded to the writ petitioners in wake of writ Court order shall not prejudicially affect their seniors, if any, not deputed for the Para-medical Training Course till date. A copy of this order shall be placed on each file. *S. No. Case No. & Year Title 1. LPASW No. 29/2011, CMA No. 30/2011 State of J&K & Ors. Vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors. 2 LPASW No. 30/2011, CMA No. 30/2011 State of J&K & Ors. Vs. Ajay Kumar &Ors.