JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. N. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the official-respondents. None appears for the other respondent despite due notice from this court as it is evident from the registry’s note dated 24.03.2011. 2. The petitioner, who is serving as the Sister Tutor, has challenged the final seniority list showing the seniority position as on 31.05.2006 published under Memorandum No. F.2(1184)MS/ESTT/2005/3429(vi) dated 16.06.2006 issued by the Director of Health Services, Government of Tripura (Annexure 13 to the writ petition).The petitioner herself has stated that being sponsored, the petitioner prosecuted the course of B. Sc. Nursing. On completion of her course, the petitioner with other two similarly sponsored candidates namely Matri Choudhury and Bapi Mahajan, the respondent Nos. 4 and 3 respectively were offered appointment for the post of sistertutor by the respondent No.2 by the memorandum dated 03.09.1991 Annexure 3 to the writ petition. By the order dated 18.02.1992, the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were asked to report for the duties to their respective place of posting as mentioned in the said order dated 18.02.1992. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner and the respondents No. 3 and 4 joined to their place of posting on the dates as shown against the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 with their place of posting. Sl. No. Name of incumbent Place of posting Date of joining 1. Smt. Maitri Choudhuri N.T.I., Kailashahar 21.2.1992 (fore-noon) 2. Papiya Das N.T.I., Udaipur 26.2.1992 (fore-noon) 3. Bapi Mahajan N.T.I., Udaipur 25.2.1992 (fore-noon) 3. By the order dated 25.02.1992, the order dated 18.02.1992 was partly modified by posting the petitioner in the Nursing Training Institute (NTI), Udaipur, South Tripura, instead of Nursing Training Institute, Kailashahar as shown in the order dated 18.02.1992. Accordingly, the petitioner and the respondents joined their respective place of posting on the dates as shown in the table. The petitioner has admitted that by the memorandum dated 24.10.1994, Annexure7 to the writ petition a final seniority list of Sister Tutors was published showing their position on 13.09.1994. In that list, the petitioner was shown as Srl. No. 25 respondent No. 3 was shown at Srl. No. 24 and respondent No. 4 was shown at Srl. No. 23 against their dates of joining. In that list, the petitioner was shown as Srl. No. 25 respondent No. 3 was shown at Srl. No. 24 and respondent No. 4 was shown at Srl. No. 23 against their dates of joining. In respect of the date of joining, there is also no dispute. According to the petitioner she submitted a representation on 02.11.1994 urging for review of the list and to prepare the list on the basis of merit positions in the entry post. The said representation dated 02.11.1994 is Annexure8 to the writ petition. Again, the petitioner has submitted a representation on 30.06.2009 raising her reservation against the mode of fixation of seniority. After the said representation dated 30.06.2001 Annexure 9 to the writ petition, the petitioner filed another representation dated 15.07.2005, Annexure 10 to the writ petition and urged the respondents to finalize the seniority list. Again on 12.01.2006 another representation, Annexure 11 to the writ petition was filed by the petitioner “to make the seniority list in order”. On 15.06.2016 by filing a further representation, Annexure12 to the writ petition, the petitioner had urged as under :- "In the premises I humbly appeal to your gracious self to sympathetically consider my above submission & pass necessary orders declaring the above mentioned final seniority list of the Sister Tutors under the Directorate of health Services, Tripura as on 30.09.94 void and asking the Director of Health Services, Govt. of Tripura for publication of a new final seniority list determining relative seniority of 27 Sister Tutors on the basis of merit fixed by the selection Board, on the basis of whose recommendations the Sister Tutors have been appointed from time to time. It will not be proper to fix seniority according to date of appointment inasmuch as on my initial appointment, I was prevented from joining service at Kailashahar on the basis of the order No. F.2(112)MS/Estt/91/1726 dated 18.02.92 issued by the Director of health Services, Tripura and had to join at Udaipur on latter (i.e. 26.02.92) as per modified order No. F.2(112)MS/Estt/91 dated 25.02.92 of the Director of Health Services, Tripura, and for this act of kindness I shall ever remain grateful to you." 4. By the communication under Memorandum No. F.2(1184)MS/ESTT/2005/3429(vi) dated 16.06.2006 from the Directorate of Health Services, Government of Tripura, the petitioner was communicated that the final seniority list in respect of Sister Tutors under the Directorate of Health Services was circulated. But the position as shown earlier in respect of the respondents No. 3 and 4 vis-a-vis the petitioner was not altered. Thereafter, by the notification dated 12.01.2007, Annexure-14 to the writ petition, the respondent No.4 was appointed as the Principal Nursing Officer on promotion. Again the petitioner filed another representation on 19.08.2006 for review of the final seniority list. By the memorandum dated 11.08.2006, Annexure 16 to the writ petition, the petitioner was informed that the seniority list of all incumbents in the post of Sister Tutor which was published on 16.06.2006 stands. But the petitioner did not take any action and filed the writ petition on 12.01.2011. 5. Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that based on the date of joining the seniority position cannot be determined. To illustrate the said contention, Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel has contended that many persons can be appointed by one appointment letter and their posting may be on various places. Even if the letter of appointment is delivered to all the persons on the same date it may not be possible for all of them to report on the same date. There may be different dates for the reason of the hour of journey etc. Therefore, this component cannot ever be considered as the basis of the determining seniority. Even though the petitioner has urged for two perameters to be applied for purpose of determining the seniority viz. (i) on the basis of the merit and (ii) on the basis of the date of publication of the result i.e. the result of the B.Sc. Nursing. 6. Mr. N. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the official respondents has bluntly stated in this court that there was no competitive examination for recruitment and as such, there is no question of relying on the merit position. Nursing. 6. Mr. N. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the official respondents has bluntly stated in this court that there was no competitive examination for recruitment and as such, there is no question of relying on the merit position. The respondents has relied on the date of joining in the place of posting for determining the seniority list and in this regard the respondents have followed the policy of the Government of Tripura which was circulated under office order No. F.1(16)GA/59 dated 12.07.1960 the relevant provision as may be applicable which for purpose of determining the seniority position is as under : "Direct Recruit Notwithstanding the provision of para 3 above, the relative seniority of all direct recruits shall determined by the order of merit in which they are selected for such appointment on the recommendations of the U.P.S.C. or other selecting authority, persons appointed as a result of an earlier selection being senior to those appointed as result of a subsequent selection; Provided that where persons recruited initially on a temporary basis are confirmed subsequently in an order different from the order of merit indicated at the time of their appointment, seniority shall follow the order of confirmation and not the original order of merit." 7. The said principle provides that either the seniority would be determined in order of merit or on the basis of the date of confirmation in the service for the persons who were recruited initially on a temporary basis. As such, these provisions does not help any way the respondents to defend their method of determining the inter se seniority position between the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. However while examining the records, this court finds that after a decision of the Gauhati High Court, one memorandum under No. F.23(13)GA/82 dated 25.04.1987 has been issued by the Government of Tripura in the Appointment and Service Department. From the judgment of the high court as delivered in Civil Rule No. 09/1982 it transpires that the judgment provided a general guidance for determining the seniority. The paragraph as extracted in the said memorandum dated 25.04.1987 is also reproduced hereunder : "Following the ratio laid down in Ashik Gulati (Supra) we hold that seniority of a person appointed to a particular service normally should be reckoned from the date he becomes a member of the service. The paragraph as extracted in the said memorandum dated 25.04.1987 is also reproduced hereunder : "Following the ratio laid down in Ashik Gulati (Supra) we hold that seniority of a person appointed to a particular service normally should be reckoned from the date he becomes a member of the service. We are further of the opinion that it is for the rule making authority to lay down the mode of reckoning the seniority of a member for a particular service either by rules or by executive instructions and prescribe any of the following basis for considering the seniority namely (1) date of appointment (2) date of confirmation (3) date of regularization in the services (4) length of service, or (5) any other reasonable basis." According to this court, these are golden principles of determining the seniority. In view of the said judgment as adopted by the Government of Tripura by their memorandum dated 25.04.1987, the seniority position can be determined on the basis of (1) the date of appointment (2) the date of confirmation (3) the date of regularization in the service (4) the length of service or (5) any other reasonable basis. Even in this case none of these criterior has been applied by the respondents. 8. Mr. Majumder, learned counsel has raised a serious jurisprudential objection before this court that the inter se seniority position between the petitioner and the respondents No. 3 and 4 was first determined and declared by the memorandum dated 24.10.1994, Annexure 7 to the writ petition and till 12.01.2011, the petitioner did not approach this court. On numerous occasions, she submitted the representations. Even when the final decision was communicated to her by the Director of Health Services by the memorandum dated 11.08.2006, Annexure 16 to the writ petition she did not approach this court. In the meanwhile, the position has become crystallized and several movements have taken place based on the said seniority position. 9. Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, as well as on scrutiny of the records this court has no hesitation to hold that the method that has been followed by the respondent No. 2 is wholly unreasonable and cannot be sustained. 9. Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, as well as on scrutiny of the records this court has no hesitation to hold that the method that has been followed by the respondent No. 2 is wholly unreasonable and cannot be sustained. But in such a belated stage, this court is not inclined to exercise its discretion by unsettling the settled position inasmuch as the laches are entirely attributable to the petitioner and hence this writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.