Judgment : L. Narasimha Reddy, J. The petitioners feel aggrieved by the dismissal of O.A.No.534 of 2003, by the Hyderabad Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, through order dated 26-04-2004. The petitioners filed the O.A., challenging the seniority list dated 13-01-2003, published by the respondents 1 and 2 for the post of Examiner (highly skilled Grade-II) in the Ordinance Factory, Yeddumailaram, Medak District, the 2nd respondent herein. The plea of the petitioners was that though in the recruitment to the post of semi-skilled category in the 2nd respondent, that took place during the year 1988, they were placed higher in the merit list, than the respondents 3 to 6 and several others, on the basis of the performance in a written test. According to them, their promotion to the post in the Skilled Grade were also earlier in point of time, compared to respondents 3 to 6. The respondents 1 and 2, on the one hand, and respondents 3 to 6, on the other hand, opposed the O.A., by filing replies. They pleaded that though the petitioners were placed higher in the merit list, their appointment was much subsequent to that of respondents 3 to 6. The other facts pleaded by the petitioners were also disputed. An objection was also raised on the ground of delay in pursuing the remedies. Through its order dated 26-04-2004, the Tribunal dismissed the O.A. Hence, this writ petition. Sri S. Lakshma Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the seniority of an employee, appointed through direct recruitment, is governed by the ranking assigned in the merit list by the selection authority, and in deviation of that principle, respondents 1 and 2 have treated respondents 3 to 6 as seniors to the petitioners, though the petitioners figured much above the respondents 3 to 6 in the merit list. He contends that at one point of time, the anomaly was corrected, but once again the respondents 1 and 2 have treated the respondents 3 to 6 as seniors to the petitioners. He made extensive reference to the various proceedings, that ensued in this regard. He contends that at one point of time, the anomaly was corrected, but once again the respondents 1 and 2 have treated the respondents 3 to 6 as seniors to the petitioners. He made extensive reference to the various proceedings, that ensued in this regard. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2, and learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 6, on the other hand, submit that though the ranking assigned by the selection authority in the process of direct recruitment would determine the seniority, that principle applies only in respect of the persons appointed on the same day. They contend that while the 3rd respondent was appointed in unskilled grade, on 09-05-1988, the 1st petitioner was appointed on 27-07-1988, and similar situation obtained vis-à-vis the other petitioners, on the one hand, and respondents 4 to 6, on the other hand. They submit that once the appointment of the petitioners is much subsequent to that of respondents 3 to 6, there is no way, they can be treated as seniors, and the same has been ensued at various stages. The record discloses that considerable litigation ensued as regards fixation of seniority between the petitioners, on the one hand, and respondents 3 to 6, on the other hand, at various stages. In fact, there were instances, where the petitioners have been treated as seniors to respondents 3 to 6. However, the same has been corrected at a subsequent stage. Quite large number of OPs were filed by one party or the other. It is not at all necessary to refer to them, in detail. It is a matter of record that the appointment to the posts of unskilled category in the 2nd respondent- organization is through direct recruitment, and the selection is on the basis of performance of candidates in the written test. The written test was held in 1988. The petitioners did figure above respondents 3 to 6 and certain others, in the merit list. However, either on account of delay in getting relieved from the earlier employers, or in the verification of antecedents, the petitioners were issued orders of appointment in July, 1988, whereas the respondents 3 to 6 came to be appointed in May, 1988. Basically, the seniority of an employee in a service is determined on the basis of the date of appointment. Basically, the seniority of an employee in a service is determined on the basis of the date of appointment. The principle, that the seniority of employees appointed through direct recruitment, or selection process would be decided on the basis of the ranking assigned by the selection authority; would apply only in cases, where the orders of appointment are issued on the same day. The principle does not govern the situations, where the orders of appointment are issued on different dates. If a person, who figured higher in the merit list, is issued order of appointment, after a person down in the seniority list has been appointed, he can certainly make a grievance out of it, but only at the relevant point of time. The petitioners herein did not make any protest, when they have been appointed more than two months, after the respondents 3 to 6 were appointed. In none of the services, there exists any facility, for treating an employee as a member of service anterior to the date on which he was appointed. The petitioners were not able to point out any provision, that enables them to advance the date of their appointment anterior to that of respondents 3 to 6. Once the petitioners were juniors to the respondents 3 to 6 at the initial category, the same situation was reflected all through. We do not find any illegality or infirmity, either in the procedure followed by the respondents 1 and 2, or the order passed by the Tribunal. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions filed in the writ petition shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.