Judgment : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge (Oral ) Challenge herein is to the judgment passed by learned Single Judge on 28.5.2014 in CWP No.4182 of 2013 directing thereby the appellants herein, to restore the seniority to the writ petitioner over and above the private respondents 3 to 8 in the writ petition. As regards, the consequential benefits if any to be accrued to the petitioner on restoration of her seniority, she was held entitled for the same only on notional basis. However, in the matter of her promotion if due she was ordered to be promoted with all consequential benefits. 2. The writ petitioner admittedly is senior to respondents No. 3 to 8 in the writ petition. Since she was not confirmed, therefore, in the seniority finalized on 20.2.1997, she was placed below private respondents No. 3 to 8 in the seniority list. She assailed such action on the part of the appellants-State in previously instituted writ petition i.e. CWP No. 4375 of 2009. The same was ordered to be treated as representation. Consequently, she submitted the representation to respondent No.2 and the representation so made came to be decided against her on the sole ground that at the relevant time when her seniority finalized confirmation was ultimately sent and the instructions to delink the seniority from confirmation came into force on 26.3.1997 i.e. after finalization of her seniority on 20.2.1997. This has led in filing CWP No. 4182 of 2013 which has been decided vide judgment under challenge in the present appeal. 3. Having gone through the record and also taking into consideration the submissions made on both sides, in our considered opinion, the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality and irregularity while allowing the writ petition for the reason that the practice of linking seniority with confirmation was deprecated by the Apex Court long back in its judgment in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association vs. State of Maharashtra and others (1990) 2 SCC 715 . The ratio of the law so laid down in the judgment (supra) has even been reiterated in a recent judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India vs. Dharam Pal and others (2009) 4 SCC 170 . 4. The ratio of the law so laid down in the judgment (supra) has even been reiterated in a recent judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India vs. Dharam Pal and others (2009) 4 SCC 170 . 4. This being the legal position, the appellant could have not linked the seniority of the respondent with confirmation nor the instructions issued to delink the seniority from confirmation issued by the appellant-State on 26.3.1997, could postpone the law laid down by the Apex Court to some later date. We, therefore, find no illegality or infirmity in the judgment under challenge. The appeal, therefore, fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending application, if any, shall also stands disposed of.