ORDER : The petitioners grievance is that though the respondent Nos.2 to 8 are junior to them in service, they are placed above the petitioners in the impugned seniority list. 2. Sri G.K. Basavaraj Patel, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were all appointed as the F.D.A.s on daily wages between 1983 and 1986, whereas the private respondents are appointed as S.D.A.s between 1983 and 1992. 3. Sri Rajashekar Hegde, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 8 submits that it is incorrect on the part of the petitioners to claim that they were appointed as F.D.A.s on daily wages. He submits that both the petitioners and the respondent Nos.2 to 8 were appointed as Graduate Assistants on daily wages. He submits that the pay-scales of F.D.A. were extended to both the petitioners and the respondent Nos.2 to 8 on principle of equal pay for equal work. He submits that the petitioners’ regularization was as against the supernumerary posts and that the services of the respondent Nos.2 to 8 were regularized as against the substantive vacancies. 4. Sri M.A. Subramani, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent No.9 submits that those of the employees, whose services came to be regularized in sanctioned posts first, are entitled to be above those employees, whose services are regularized as against the supernumerary posts. 5. Neither the petitioners’ side nor the respondents’ side has produced any appointment order. In the absence of the appointment orders, it is not known as to whether they were appointed as F.D.A.s, or S.D.A.s or Graduate Assistants. Further, it is also not known whether the regularization of services took place based on the seniority in their appointment on daily wages. If ‘A’ is appointed on daily wages in 1983 and ‘B’ is appointed in 1984 and if a substantive vacancy arose in 1995, the services of ‘B’ cannot be regularized before the regularization of the services of ‘A’. It is not known what yardstick or norm was followed for regularizing the services of the petitioners and the private respondents and drawing of their seniority list. It is not known what yardstick or norm was followed for regularizing the services of the petitioners and the private respondents and drawing of their seniority list. I am therefore constrained to allow this petition, without expressing any opinion on the tenability or otherwise of the impugned seniority list, by directing the petitioners and the respondent Nos.2 to 8 to file their claims and counterclaims before the respondent No.1 in the matter of seniority. Thereafter the respondent No.1 shall pass the necessary orders in accordance with the service regulations. 6. Both the learned advocates Sri G.K. Basavaraj Patel for the petitioners and Sri Rajashekar Hegde for the respondent Nos.2 to 8 undertake to have their representations filed before the respondent No.1 within two weeks from today. If they do so, the respondent No.1 shall consider the same as expeditiously as possible and in any case within an outer limit of six weeks from the date of the receipt of the representations.