JUDGMENT & ORDER : MANOJIT BHUYAN, J. 1. The appellant as the writ petitioner instituted WP (C) 4512/2010 and WP (C) 3947/2012 challenging the Gradation Lists of Typist (Ordinary Grade) as on May 2006 and as on November 2011 under the establishment of the Assam Secretariat Administration Department. The writ petitions having been dismissed by common Order dated 21.11.2013, hence the present appeal. 2. We have heard Mr. B. Gogoi, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. B.N. Sarma, learned Senior Government Advocate, State of Assam, representing the respondents. 3. Facts to be noticed are that on 10.02.1992 the appellant was engaged as Typist on daily wage basis for a period of 2 (two) months, commencing from 10.02.1992 to 31.03.1992. The order of engagement was issued by the Department of Personnel, Secretariat Administration (Estt.). In the same year the Office Order dated 30.04.1992 was issued regularising the services of the petitioner with consequential appointment as a Typist in the Assam Secretariat by relaxing Rule 10(1) of the Assam Secretariat Subordinate Service Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred as the Service Rules of 1963) in exercise of powers under Rule 29 thereof. In the year 2006 the respondent authority published the Final Gradation List of Typist (Ordinary Grade) with the name of the appellant finding place at Serial No. 177. Appellant claimed that her name ought to have been placed at Serial No. 8 and to that effect made a Representation after about 3(three) years i.e. on 18.05.2009 before the Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Secretariat Administration (Estt.) for refixation of her seniority at Serial No. 8 of the 2006 Gradation List. The said representation having been rejected constrained the appellant to institute WP (C) 2855/2009. This Court by Order dated 20.07.2009 disposed of the said writ petition with direction to the Commissioner & Secretary, Secretariat Administration (Estt.) Department to consider and dispose of the Representation dated 18.05.2009 on merit. The follow-up of the direction of this Court culminated in the Office Order dated 19.09.2009, thereby rejecting the fresh representation made by the appellant on 27.07.2009 pursuant to the Court’s Order dated 20.07.2009. Aggrieved, the appellant instituted the second writ petition i.e. WP (C) 4512/2010. The follow-up of the direction of this Court culminated in the Office Order dated 19.09.2009, thereby rejecting the fresh representation made by the appellant on 27.07.2009 pursuant to the Court’s Order dated 20.07.2009. Aggrieved, the appellant instituted the second writ petition i.e. WP (C) 4512/2010. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the respondent authority issued another Provisional Gradation List of Typists (Ordinary Grade) as on November, 2011 showing the name of the appellant at Serial No. 27. Again aggrieved, the appellant instituted the third writ petition i.e. WP (C) 3947/2012. Both the second and the third writ petition were heard and dismissed by the judgment and order under appeal dated 21.11.2013. 4. In the Office Order dated 19.09.2009, which had been passed pursuant to order in WP (C) 2855/2009 it is indicated that on 08.05.1992 a Select List of candidates containing the names of 265 nos. of candidates were published for appointment to the post of Typist (Ordinary Grade) in the Assam Secretariat after holding competitive Typing Speed Test. The said Select List had been prepared on the basis of merit and was re-validated from time to time up to the year 1994 with approval of the authority concerned. Referring to the provisions of sub-rule (5) of Rule 26 of the Service Rules of 1963, the Office Order also indicated that under the said provisions the inter se seniority of Typist (Ordinary Grade) is to be maintained in the order in which names appear in the list in order of merit. The manner of fixing the seniority of the incumbents, as normally done, was also indicated in the following order. (i) Incumbent promoted to the post of Typist. (ii) Typist appointed from the select list prepared after holding a competitive Typing Speed Test. (iii) Typist appointed in relaxation of relevant Rules. 5. The respondent authority held that since the appellant was appointed as Typist by relaxation of the Recruitment Rules, her position in the Gradation List was accordingly fixed below the 1992 batch of candidates who had come in through competition. It was also indicated that the appellant was placed in the Gradation List along with similarly situated Typist who had been appointed in the year 1992 by relaxation of the relevant recruitment rules and was accordingly placed at Serial No. 177. The respondent authority, therefore, declined to accept the claim made by the appellant. It was also indicated that the appellant was placed in the Gradation List along with similarly situated Typist who had been appointed in the year 1992 by relaxation of the relevant recruitment rules and was accordingly placed at Serial No. 177. The respondent authority, therefore, declined to accept the claim made by the appellant. The said Office Order dated 19.09.2009 also indicated that on earlier occasion also the appellant had made claim for refixation of her inter se seniority above the 1992 batch of persons who were appointed after holding of selection test. The said plea was rejected on 18.08.2007. 6. As regards the issue raised in the third writ petition i.e. WP (C) 3947/2012, the same was answered by the learned Single Judge by taking note of the stand of the said respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition. Reliance was placed in the Office Order dated 19.09.2009 and also to the fact that the appellant was never appointed by following the due process of selection but by relaxation of the relevant recruitment rules. Notice was also had to the method employed by the respondent authorities while fixing inter se seniority of the incumbents, as indicated above. The learned Single Judge arrived at the finding that considering the manner in which Gradation List is prepared and also having regard to the circumstances under which the appellant was appointed as Typist by relaxation of the relevant recruitment rules vis-a-vis those appointed in the year 1992 on merit through competitive typing test, held that the appellant do not belong to the same class and cannot equate herself with those Typists who were placed above the appellant in the Gradation List and who had been appointed on merit through a recruitment exercise. In that view of the matter, the learned Single Judge held that the Gradation List of 2006 as well as the Gradation List of 2011 do not suffer from any infirmities warranting interference of this Court. 7. The primary issue for adjudication involves whether the appellant, in the facts and circumstances, can be allowed to steal a march over the persons who had been appointed as Typists (Ordinary Grade) in the year 1992 following recruitment process. 8. First and foremost, it is placed on record that none of the incumbents from the 1992 batch of recruits have been impleaded as party respondents in the case. 8. First and foremost, it is placed on record that none of the incumbents from the 1992 batch of recruits have been impleaded as party respondents in the case. Notwithstanding the non-impleadment of necessary parties, sub-rule (5) of Rule 26 of the Service Rules of 1963 prescribes that inter se seniority of Typist (Ordinary Grade) are to be prepared in the order in which the names of the incumbents appear in the list mentioned in Rule 20 thereof. Under Rule 20, statutory obligation is cast upon the Assam Public Service Commission or the Selection Committee, as the case may be, to forward to the appointing authority a list arranged in order of merit of the candidates who have qualified in respect of the categories of posts mentioned in Rule 7(3), Rule 8(1) and Rule 10 of the Service Rules of 1963. Rule 10 pertains to appointment to the post of Typist (Ordinary Grade). A consideration of the aforesaid provisions clearly indicate that primacy in respect of inter se seniority has to be given to such incumbents who are appointed as Typist (Ordinary Grade) as per the list prepared in order of merit by the Assam Public Service Commission or the Selection Committee, as the case may be. Apparently, the appellant did not come through any recruitment exercise conducted either by the Commission or by a Selection Committee. In that view of the matter, the appellant cannot claim to have a better right and/or be placed above the incumbents who came in through a selection process and/or those who have been placed in the Gradation List by arrangement of the names as per the list forwarded to the appointing authority by the Commission or the Selection Committee. 9. Additional fact to be noticed is that the Gradation List of 2006 is the Final Gradation List of Typists (Ordinary Grade) as on May, 2006. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant had ventilated her grievances prior to the publication of the Final List, that is, during any time between the publication of the Provisional Gradation List and the Final Gradation List of 2006. Also, she made representation expressing her grievances against the Final Gradation List of 2006 only in the year 2009, that is, after about 3 years. Also, she made representation expressing her grievances against the Final Gradation List of 2006 only in the year 2009, that is, after about 3 years. In so far as the Gradation List of 2011 is concerned, the position of the appellant had virtually remained the same with the names of the incumbents from the 1992 batch being shown senior to her. Practically, the substance of grievance raised as against the Gradation List of 2006 is also the grievance raised in respect of the Gradation List of 2011. Having regard to the provisions under the Service Rules of 1963 as regards manner of fixation of inter se seniority, the appellant has not been able to make out a case warranting this Court to make interference in the Gradation Lists. This Court will also not venture to upset the Gradation Lists when none of the incumbents figuring above the appellant in the Gradation Lists have been impleaded as party respondents in the case. This Court will also not venture to unsettle a settled position at this distant point of time when the said Gradation Lists have further been acted upon in effecting promotion to those deserving to higher ranks. This view is taken on the basis of the submission made by Mr. Gogoi that in the meantime Typists of the 1992 batch who had come in through selection have already been granted promotion to higher posts. 10. For the fact that the appellant has failed to make out a case that she is legally entitled to be placed higher up in the Gradation Lists above those candidates who had been appointed in the year 1992 through regular selection process and also having regard to the fact that necessary parties have not been made party respondents in this case and also no due diligence having been demonstrated by the appellant, we find no good ground to interfere with the Order dated 21.11.2013 passed in WP (C) 4512/2010 and WP (C) 3947/2012. Resultantly, this appeal being devoid of merits, stands accordingly dismissed, however, without any order as to costs.