JUDGMENT : S.N. Prasad, J. This writ petition is against the seniority list as contained in Annexure-7(A) and communication of rejection of the objection of the petitioner dtd.4.8.2006 as contained in Annexure-11. 2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner as well as opposite party no.4 who while working in the office of the Deputy Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Cuttack as Amins job contract establishment with grade pay of Rs.240/-, the Secretary of Cuttack Development Authority has made requisition to recommend the names of the suitable Amins for their appointment under the Cuttack Development Authority in the pay scale of Rs.650/- - Rs.940/- with other allowances as admissible to the Cuttack Development Authority employees. In view thereof the petitioner as well as opposite party no.4 had submitted their willingness to make application for being considered as Amin / Field Assistant under the Cuttack Development Authority. Their applications have been entertained and they have been allowed to participate in the interview in which they have been declared successful and accordingly a common merit list was prepared by the selection committee, meeting of which was held on 25.9.1997 in order of merit containing the names of candidates in following manner:- (i) Mahendra Kumar Swain, opposite party no.4, (ii) N.K. Mohapatra, (iii) Bichitrananda Pradhan, the present petitioner. And in view thereof the appointment letters have been issued in favour of the petitioner as well as opposite party no.4 with direction to give their joining by 20th October, 1987 if the terms and condition of the offer of appointment are acceptable to them. The petitioner as well as opposite party no.4 have been engaged on contract basis vide order dtd.8.10.1987 for three years with effect from the date of their joining to work as Field Assistant in the office of Cuttack Development Authority on certain terms and conditions, one of the conditions is that they will be paid a consolidated sum of Rs.900/-, Rs.925/- and Rs.950/- only for first, second and third year respectively with further condition that they will not be entitled to get any other benefit like house rent allowance, medical allowances, LTC, etc. Both the petitioner as well as opposite party no.4 had accepted the offer of appointment and shown their willingness to join their duties under Cuttack Development Authority. Both the petitioner as well as opposite party no.4 had accepted the offer of appointment and shown their willingness to join their duties under Cuttack Development Authority. The petitioner has joined on 20th October, 1987 but the opposite party no.4 has joined on 2.11.1987. After completion of period of three years of service both of them have been taken under regular establishment w.e.f. 20.10.1990 and 2.11.1990 respectively. The authority has regularized the period of contract to be counted to their length of service but without any financial benefit. The authorities have prepared a provisional seniority list asking objection from the respective candidates vide office order dtd.16.3.2000 and in terms thereof the petitioner has submitted objection but the same has been rejected vide annexure-11 and a seniority list was published under Annexure-7(A) placing the petitioner at Sl. No.4 while the opposite party no.4 has been placed at Sl. No.2. The grievance of the petitioner is that since he has been joined on 20th October 1987 and also taken under regular post of Amin / Field Assistant w.e.f. 20.10.1990 while the opposite party no.4 has joined on 2.11.1987 and taken under regular post of Amin / Field Assistant on 2.11.1990, as such on the basis of date of joining he should have been senior to that of opposite party no.4 but in spite of the objection having been made by stating this aspect of the matter the petitioner has been shown below than opposite party no.4. It has been submitted that during pendency of the writ petition he has been superannuated from service but the opposite party no.4 in the meanwhile has been granted promotion to the post of Field Inspector. However the promotion has been made subject to the result of this writ petition. The grievance of the petitioner is that if the authority would have prepared the seniority list on the basis of date of joining, then he would have been above than opposite party no.4 in the seniority list and in that situation he would have been granted promotion to the post of Field Supervisor but the authorities illegally have made opposite party no.4 senior and as such he has been deprived from the benefit of promotion in the post of Field Supervisor hence this writ petition has been filed. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that date of joining was to be taken into consideration by the authority while preparing the seniority list but that has not been taken into consideration, hence the authorities have committed illegality in formulating the seniority list and his objection has also not been taken into consideration, that too without any speaking order in this regard. 3. The Cuttack Development Authority has appeared through its counsel who has submitted that seniority list cannot be prepared on the basis of date of joining for the reason that there might be situation that a candidate living in a place where he has to give his joining and he can join on the same day, but in a situation if a candidate living far away from the place of posting, then it cannot be expected from such candidate to join on the same day, hence taking into consideration this practical difficulty the authorities have not decided to prepare the seniority list on the basis of date of joining, rather the authority have taken a conscious decision to prepare the seniority list on the basis of position in the merit list, hence there is no infirmity in the same. It has been submitted that since the matter has already set at rest and a transparent policy has been formulated by the Cuttack Development Authority in preparing the seniority list the same has got no infirmity and it cannot be unsettled after such a long time. 4. The opposite party no.4 has appeared through his counsel and filed detail counter affidavit, inter alia stating therein that both the petitioner as well as opposite party no.4 were working in the Consolidation Department of the State Government. 4. The opposite party no.4 has appeared through his counsel and filed detail counter affidavit, inter alia stating therein that both the petitioner as well as opposite party no.4 were working in the Consolidation Department of the State Government. After creation of Cuttack Development Authority requisition has been made from the Consolidated Department with respect to experienced Amins and if any Amins working in the Consolidation Department are willing to discharge their duties in the Cuttack Development Authority, they may make application and in terms thereof both the petitioner as well as opposite party no.4 had participated in the selection process which was followed by written examination and viva voice test thereafter selection list was prepared and in the said selection list the opposite party no.4 has been shown at serial no.1 and the petitioner has been shown at serial no.3 in order of their position in the merit list and taking into consideration the fact that there is no rule prevailing for determination of seniority in the Cuttack Development Authority the authorities have taken decision to formulate the seniority list on the basis of position in the merit list. It has been submitted that the contention of the petitioner to prepare seniority list on the basis of date of joining is not admissible for the reason that date of joining cannot be the determining factor for preparation of seniority list rather the date of appointment or the position in the merit list can be said to be the determining factor. In this case the appointment letter has been issued on the same date with direction to the appointees to give their joining by 20th October, 1987. The petitioner has given his joining on 20th October 1987 but since opposite party no.4 who was working in the Consolidation Department but not being relieved from the controlling authority and as such he has taken extension of time from the Cuttack Development Authority in resuming his duty, which was accepted by the authority and thereafter after being relieved from the erstwhile employer the opposite party no.4 has given joining on 2.11.1987, hence in this situation the contention of the petitioner that the seniority list should to be prepared on the basis of date of joining cannot be said to be perfect and proper. It has been submitted that the authorities after taking into consideration this aspect of the matter has taken a conscious decision to formulate the seniority list on the basis of position in the merit list, hence there is no infirmity in the same. 5. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the documents available on record. The issue fail for consideration in this case is:- (i) Whether seniority would be determined on the basis of date of joining or date of issuance of appointment letter or on the basis of position of respective candidates in the merit list ? Before answering these questions, it would be relevant to refer certain authorities of Hon’ble Apex Court in which the issue has been answered. In the case of Union of India Vrs. H.R. Patankar, AIR 1984 SC 1587 it has been held that if there are no statutory rule in force for determining seniority in a service or even if there are statutory rules but they are silent on any particular subject, it is competent to the government by an executive order to make appropriate Seniority Rules or to fill in the lacuna in the statutory rules by making an appropriate Seniority Rule in regard to the subject on which the statutory rules are silent. Reference may also be made to the Constitution Bench Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of The Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers’ Association and Others Vrs. State of Maharashtra and Others, AIR 1990 SC 1607 wherein their lordships have been pleased to hold that seniority is to be counted from the date of appointment. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Lal and Others Vrs. State of H.P. Through its Secretary, Excise and Taxation Department, Government Secretariat, Shimla-2 and Others, (1997) 4 SCC 416 has been pleased to hold that determination of seniority should be the date of passing departmental examination and date of appointment on probation. Although in that case there was a specific rule to fix the inter se seniority. In case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad Vrs. D. Shankaraiah and Others, (2001) 10 SC 200 the Hon’ble Apex Court following the judgment rendered in the case of Mohan Lal’s Case (supra) has been pleased to hold to count seniority with effect from the date of passing examination. In case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad Vrs. D. Shankaraiah and Others, (2001) 10 SC 200 the Hon’ble Apex Court following the judgment rendered in the case of Mohan Lal’s Case (supra) has been pleased to hold to count seniority with effect from the date of passing examination. One another judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of International Coach Builders Ltd. Vrs. Karnataka State Financial Corporation, AIR 2003 SC 2012 the preparation of seniority list has been approved on the basis of position in the merit list. In the case of Suresh Chandra Jha Vrs. State of Bihar and Others, (2007) 1 SCC 405 placing reliance upon the judgment rendered in the case of Chairman, Puri Gramya Bank and another Vrs. Ananda Chandra Das and others, (1994) 6 SCC 301 it has been held that “it is settle law that if more than one are selected, the seniority is as per ranking of the direct recruits subject to the adjustment of the candidates selected on applying the rule of reservation and roster.” In the said judgment the plea of preparing the seniority list on the basis of date of joining has been turned down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Thus on the basis of these authorities there is no dispute about the fact that the position in the merit list or date of appointment is to be taken into consideration for preparing seniority list in absence of statutory rule in this regard and the authority can fix the seniority according to their own decision on the basis of settled proposition. 6. So far as the fact of the case is concerned the fact which is not in dispute is that both the petitioner as well as opposite party no.4 were working in the Consolidation Department of the State Government. The Cuttack Development Authority has created post of Amins / Field Assistants. The authority was in need of experienced Amins / Field Assistants and as such requisition was made to the Director of Consolidation, Tulasipur, Cuttack to recommend the names of suitable Amins for appointment in Cuttack Development Authority. In the light of the said requisition the names of petitioner, opposite party no.4 and others have been recommended. The authority was in need of experienced Amins / Field Assistants and as such requisition was made to the Director of Consolidation, Tulasipur, Cuttack to recommend the names of suitable Amins for appointment in Cuttack Development Authority. In the light of the said requisition the names of petitioner, opposite party no.4 and others have been recommended. The Cuttack Development Authority has published advertisement in this regard making a condition that one or the other candidate will have to participate in the written examination followed by viva voice test and accordingly petitioner as well as opposite party no.4 had been allowed to participate in the written examination, viva voice test and the selection process was concluded, merit list was prepared selecting the petitioner as well as opposite party no.4 in order of merit as would be evident from the proceeding of selection held on 25.9.1987 (Annexure-F/3) annexed to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no.4 which is being referred herein below: “8 candidates sponsored by the consolidation organizations appeared for interview. As per their performances in written as well as viva-voice test, the selection committee found the following candidates suitable for the post of Amin. Their names are in order of merit. (1) Mahendra Kumar Swain, (2) N.K. Mohapatra, and (3) Bichitrananda Pradhan.” In terms of the same the appointment letters have been issued in favour of the petitioner as well as opposite party no.4 on 08.10.1987 with direction to give joining on or before 20th October, 1987. The offer of appointment initially was for a contract period of three years on payment of consolidated pay with a direction to be taken under regular post after completion of three years of service. The condition referred in the offer of appointment is that in case of the terms and conditions are acceptable, one or the other candidate may join the organization on or before 20th October, 1987. The condition referred in the offer of appointment is that in case of the terms and conditions are acceptable, one or the other candidate may join the organization on or before 20th October, 1987. Both the petitioner as well as opposite party no.4 has accepted the terms and conditions and the petitioner has given his joining on 20th October 1987 but the opposite party no.4 could not be able to join on 20th October 1987 since he was not been relieved from his place of posting and as such he has sought for extension of time allowing him to resume his duty by making appropriate application before the Cuttack Development Authority and the Cuttack Development Authority has allowed time. Opposite party no.4 after being relieved from the erstwhile employer has given his joining on 2.11.1987. It further transpires from the record that the Cuttack Development Authority has passed an order on 1.7.1997 by which the contract period has been taken into consideration and the said period has been regularized to be counted towards length of service but without any financial benefit. The Cuttack Development Authority invited objections / suggestions from the employees of Cuttack Development Authority as to the gradation list published herewith within a fortnight. The petitioner after knowing the fact that the seniority list published on the basis of position in the merit list keeping the petitioner below than the opposite party no.4 has raised an objection vide Annexure-8(A) raising his grievance that the seniority list should be prepared on the basis of initial date of joining and not on the basis of position in the merit list. It has been stated in the objection that since the petitioner has joined and regularized prior to opposite party no.4, as such these dates are to be taken into consideration while preparing the seniority list but the Cuttack Development Authority has passed order under Annexure-11 dtd.4.8.2006 rejecting the objection of the petitioner by assigning reason that the list has been prepared on the basis of merit list prepared by the selection committee held on 25.9.1987. Learned counsel for the petitioner has given much emphasis to the note sheet as contained in Annexure-9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has given much emphasis to the note sheet as contained in Annexure-9. The petitioner being aggrieved with the said decision of the authority is before this court by way of this writ petition and raising the grievance of illegality having been committed by the authority in preparing the seniority list on the basis of merit position in stead of dates of joining. 7. Preparation of seniority list on the basis of joining date has been deprecated for the reason that it will create difficulties to such group of candidates who are living far away from the place of posting and it will be advantageous to such group of candidates who are living in the place of posting, hence preparation of seniority list on the date of joining has been held to be not proper. Here in this case it is not in dispute that the petitioner has joined earlier to that of opposite party no.4 appointed on same date which was due to the reason that opposite party no.4 was not relieved from his office and subsequently he was relieved and within the time extended by the Cuttack Development Authority he has joined on 2.11.1987. The Cuttack Development Authority after considering the fact that the preparation of seniority list on the basis of joining would not be proper and appointment orders are on the same date, hence not decided to prepare seniority list either on the basis of date of joining or date of appointment, rather followed the settled principle, i.e. taking into consideration the position in the merit list prepared for selecting the candidates has been made as the determining factor of determination of inter se seniority of petitioner as well as opposite party no.4. Thus taking into consideration the stand of opposite parties, in my considered view the authorities have not committed illegality and they are right in not accepting the note sheet as contained in Annexure-9 and as such they have taken conscious decision based upon the settled proposition of law. 8. Otherwise also the list prepared way back may not be allowed to be disturbed based upon the principle that things cannot be unsettled which has already been settled by taking conscious decision in this regard. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered in case of Kishen Pattnayak & Anr. Vrs. 8. Otherwise also the list prepared way back may not be allowed to be disturbed based upon the principle that things cannot be unsettled which has already been settled by taking conscious decision in this regard. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered in case of Kishen Pattnayak & Anr. Vrs. State of Orissa, 1998 1 SC 57 wherein it has been held that question of seniority should not be rebound after lapse of reasonable period as it results in disturbing the settled position which is not justifiable. In view thereof and in view of the facts stated herein above, in my considered view, the authorities have not committed illegality in preparing the seniority list under Annexure-7 and rejecting the claim of the petitioner vide Annexure-11 dtd.4.8.2006. Accordingly the writ petition stand dismissed.