JUDGMENT : K.M. Joseph, J. 1. All these writ petitions are directed against the order passed by the Public Services Tribunal, except WPSB No. 247 of 2017, which also we are disposing of by this common judgment. 2. The order of the Tribunal came to be passed in two claim petitions. The relief sought in Claim Petition No. 01 of 2015 was as follows: “(i) issue an order or direction for quashing the final seniority list dated 03.01.2015, select list/recommendation of departmental promotion committee dated 04.01.2015 and the promotion letter dated 05.01.2015 issued by respondent no.2.” 3. The question related to the inter se seniority between direct recruits on the one hand and promotees on the other hand in regard to the posts of Assistant Engineer. There were eight claim petitioners. On the other hand, the other claim petition was filed as Claim Petition No.16 of 2014. There was one claim petitioner therein. It related to the similar issue, namely, the inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotees in the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical & Mechanical). 4. The Tribunal allowed the claim petition and set aside the final seniority list. Operative portion of the said order reads as under:- “The claim petition is allowed. The final seniority list dated 03.01.2015 issued by the respondent no.2, select list/recommendations of DPC dated 04.01.2015 and promotion letter/order dated 05.01.2015 issued by respondent no.2 are hereby set aside. The respondent no.2 is hereby directed to prepare a fresh seniority list according to the Rules and Regulations and as per the observation made above, treating the appointment of the respondents (direct recruits) from the date of their substantive appointment to the cadre, after completion of their training period for the purpose of seniority, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and after publishing the seniority list, the promotional exercise can be taken accordingly as per law. No order as to costs.” 5. What appealed to the Tribunal and persuaded it to grant relief in the claim petitions may be briefly summed up as hereunder. No order as to costs.” 5. What appealed to the Tribunal and persuaded it to grant relief in the claim petitions may be briefly summed up as hereunder. The case of the claim petitioners was that the final seniority list was legally flawed for the reason that seniority was determined in regard to the direct recruits, not with reference to the date on which they were substantively appointed and, instead; seniority was accorded to them with reference to the date on which they were only appointed as trainees. In this regard, the case, which was set up by the claim petitioners and which was accepted by the Tribunal, was that under the Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board Service Engineer Regulation, 1970 Rules, what was contemplated was the division of posts of Assistant Engineer between direct recruits and promotees; but, under the Rules, the direct recruits had to undergo training. After they successfully underwent the training alone they could be appointed. It is this appointment, which would qualify as substantive appointment. It is, therefore, only on successful completion of training and the direct recruit is appointed that the direct recruit could stake a claim to have the seniority fixed with reference to such appointment made after successful completion of training. In this regard, the Tribunal has referred to the provisions in the 1970 Regulation in substance. 6. Attacking this line of reasoning, the contention taken by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would essentially that, under Rule 15 of the 1970 Rules, what is contemplated is the preparation of a waiting list. The wait list is to be prepared on the basis of the select list prepared under Rule 6 of Appendix-B. This is in respect of direct recruits. 7. We heard Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Advocate Mr. S.S. Yadav, Advocate, Mr. Alok Mehra, Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate, Mr. D. Barthwal and Mr. Arun Pal, Advocate. We also heard Mr. D.S. Patni, who appeared for the respondent-Uttarakhand Power Corporation whose action, was impugned in the claim petitions. This is of course besides hearing Mr. I.P. Gairola, learned counsel, who represented the claim petitioner before us. We also heard Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Shubhang Dobhal, Advocate appearing in WPSB No.247 of 2016. 8. D.S. Patni, who appeared for the respondent-Uttarakhand Power Corporation whose action, was impugned in the claim petitions. This is of course besides hearing Mr. I.P. Gairola, learned counsel, who represented the claim petitioner before us. We also heard Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Shubhang Dobhal, Advocate appearing in WPSB No.247 of 2016. 8. It is pointed out that with reference to Rule 19 of the 1970 Rules that is referred to by the Tribunal that the order cannot be sustained. It is contended that under Rule 19, the fourth proviso contemplates fixing of seniority with reference to the wait list prepared under Rule 15. In Rule 15, it is contended that there is only a reference to the select list and, therefore, even if the appointment, which is made subsequently after the completion of training, is to be treated as the order of appointment, the seniority will be fixed with reference to the position obtaining in the wait list prepared under Rule 15. There is also a case that the first order, by which they are appointed, itself must be treated as the appointment order. 9. Mr. D.S. Patni, who appears for the Corporation, both as petitioners and as respondent, would in fact, submit that Rule 19, which is the premise from the order of Tribunal, itself has been substituted by another provision and this took place in 1998. The actual date on which it was substituted is 26.12.1998. However, questions like, what is the effect of the substitution on the fate of these cases can be decided only if other relevant questions are posed and answered. To name a few, it would have to be considered and decided, as to whether it will still be the earlier Rule, which will continue to apply having regard to the date on which the Corporation has adopted the 1970 Rules may crop up for consideration. That is to say, it would become necessary to decide, as to when the Corporation adopted the 1970 Rules. Whether the doctrine of legislation by reference or legislation by incorporation may be applicable, may be a matter which requires consideration. The date of adoption and the content of resolution adopting the concerned Rules would be relevant. The Regulations have been made under the Electricity Supply Act, 1948. The Uttarakhand Power Corporation came into being in 2003. Whether the doctrine of legislation by reference or legislation by incorporation may be applicable, may be a matter which requires consideration. The date of adoption and the content of resolution adopting the concerned Rules would be relevant. The Regulations have been made under the Electricity Supply Act, 1948. The Uttarakhand Power Corporation came into being in 2003. Furthermore, we notice that there is a case built up under the IVth proviso to Regulation 19 of the 1970 Regulation. The case sought to build up is that it expressly provides that when appointments are made, as provided therein, then, the matter relating to seniority must be resolved with reference to position of the wait list, as contained in the list prepared under Regulation 15. This aspect has not engaged the attention of the Tribunal, may be because it was not argued before it, as contended by Mr. I.P. Gairola, learned counsel for the claim petitioner. 10. There is yet another line of argument and that is based on the enactment of the 1998 Regulation. The case that is sought to be set up is that, under the said Regulations, which, according to the petitioners, would apply in case of inconsistency with the 1970 Regulations, the second proviso to Sub Rule 3 of Rule (8) provides as follows: “(ii) Where appointments from any source fall short of the prescribed quota an appointment against such unfilled vacancies are made in subsequent year or years, the vacancies are made in subsequent year or years, the persons so appointed shall not get seniority of any earlier year but shall get the seniority of the year in which their appointments are made, so however, that their names shall be placed at the top followed by the names, in the cyclic order of the other appointees.” 11. There is reference to Rule Clause 13 of Appendix-B by the petitioners to contend that right to seniority, obtained by virtue of their position in the select list, will be lost only as provided in Clause 13. 12. The Tribunal, it be noted has, essentially proceeded on the basis that under the 1970 Regulations, unless a person has completed its training and is appointed as a trained engineer, the Rules do not predicate for reckoning of seniority. 12. The Tribunal, it be noted has, essentially proceeded on the basis that under the 1970 Regulations, unless a person has completed its training and is appointed as a trained engineer, the Rules do not predicate for reckoning of seniority. We would think that the order of the Tribunal does not deal with many aspects, which are thrown up by the contentions before us by the petitioners. As already noted, they include the effect of fourth provision of Rule 19 of the 1970 Rules, the effect of the amendment of Rule 19 in the year 1998 and the insertion of a new Rule and, furthermore, the effect of the second proviso to Rule 8(3) of the 1998 Rules. These legal issues must be dealt with after noting the effect of the facts also. That is to say, the Tribunal, whose orders we are called upon to judicially review must first ascertain the law, which applies to the cases at hand, find the facts within the four walls of its jurisdiction and, then, adjudicate the dispute. We must remind ourselves that we are ourselves in judicial review of the Tribunal’s order and the Tribunal’s order is also one of judicial review; but, within the four corners of its jurisdiction, the Tribunal must perform its duty of ascertaining the facts and apply the law correctly. We do feel that the order of the Tribunal, as it has passed, cannot be sustained, as many pertinent aspects have not been gone into by it. May be because it was not presented before it in the proper way and the blame for it largely lies at the door step of the Corporation, which was duty bound to place the correct state of the Rules along with the dates on which they were adopted before the Tribunal. 13. There is yet another aspect, which we must touch upon. There are posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil) and also the posts of Assistant Engineer (Electrical & Mechanical). As noted, there were two claim petitions. One related to the final seniority list in respect of Assistant Engineer (Electrical & Mechanical) and another claim petition was devoted to the issue in respect of Assistant Engineer (Civil). In regard to the Assistant Engineer (Civil), Mr. Alok Mahra, Mr. A.P. Sah and Mr. D. Barthwal besides Mr. D.S. Patni, appear. 14. As noted, there were two claim petitions. One related to the final seniority list in respect of Assistant Engineer (Electrical & Mechanical) and another claim petition was devoted to the issue in respect of Assistant Engineer (Civil). In regard to the Assistant Engineer (Civil), Mr. Alok Mahra, Mr. A.P. Sah and Mr. D. Barthwal besides Mr. D.S. Patni, appear. 14. Learned counsel appearing in these petitions would submit that, actually, there is a separate Regulation framed, also in the year 1970. Mr. Alok Mahra would, in fact, contend that, in the said Rules, which exclusively deal with the Assistant Engineer (Civil), there is no concept of trained engineer and there is no definition of trained engineer given in the Rules. Even though, he did make an attempt to contend that there was only one order, he later resiled from the same and did concede when Mr. I.P. Gairola pointed out that there were indeed two orders in respect of Assistant Engineer (Civil) that there were two orders. In fact, the contents of the first order, by which they were appointed, would tend to show that they were also selected for training and the other contents would be similar to that of the Assistant Engineer (Civil) and (Mechanical). He would submit that the Tribunal did not consider the Regulations in relation to Assistant Engineer (Civil) 1970 and, on this ground also, the order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained. We do note the argument of Mr. I.P. Gairola, learned counsel for the claim petitioners that the General Rules 1970 would apply and the Rules in respect of Assistant Engineer (Civil) will only supplement the General Rules. Mr. Alok Mehra also referred to the 1998 Regulations. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioners would emphasize that the recruitment process in their cases were commenced in the year 2006. The vacancies were of the year 2006 or earlier and, therefore, the Court must keep that in view. In fact, Mr. S.S. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners, in one of these cases, drew our attention to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2012) 13 SCC 340 in this regard and contended that, therefore, the seniority would relate back to the year in which vacancies arose. The contention, in short, as far as promotees are concerned, their promotions were effected in respect of year 2008-2009. The contention, in short, as far as promotees are concerned, their promotions were effected in respect of year 2008-2009. As far as the decision in (2012) 13 SCC 340 is concerned, we notice, prima facie, that case involved appreciation of two office memorandum dated 07.02.1986 and 03.07.1986 and followed, no doubt, by another office memorandum dated 03.03.2008. We make this observation noting having regard to the course we are adopting in this case, namely, remitting the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. It must be remembered that, in any service matter, it is important to notice the Rules applicable to the particular service, ascertain the facts and to apply the Rules as applicable to the service. The enunciation of universal immutable, principles without exception, without reference to the facts cannot be appreciated. Therefore, it is for the Tribunal to decide, after ascertaining the correct Rule, which is applicable to the facts, and the facts themselves, as to what should be the fate of the claim petitions. 16. There is another contention raised by Mr. S.S. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner in one of the cases, that the claim petitioners though had filed objections to the tentative list and they stood rejected by an order, the said order was not impugned. This is answered by Mr. I.P. Gairola, learned counsel for the claim petitioners pointing out that no such order was served. No doubt, we also notice that final seniority list itself has been called in question by the claim petitioners. 17. We must deal with two other petitions, which are slightly different. In Writ Petition No.247 of 2016 (S/B), the prayers sought are as follows: “(I). Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the seniority list dated 03.01.2015(contained in Annexure no.9 to this petition) after summoning the original of the same from the respondents. (II). Issue a writ order or direction in nature of certiorari quashing the promotion order dated 05.01.2015 (contained in Annexure No.11 to this petition) after summoning the original of the same from the respondents. (III). Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent nos.1 to 3 to prepare the combined seniority list of Assistant Engineer in accordance with law and thereafter to conduct the process of selection for the post of Executive Engineer strictly as prescribed.” 18. (III). Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent nos.1 to 3 to prepare the combined seniority list of Assistant Engineer in accordance with law and thereafter to conduct the process of selection for the post of Executive Engineer strictly as prescribed.” 18. We are of the view that what is involved, is a challenge to the seniority list and we do not think that we should particularly, having regard to the course we are adopting in this case, entertain this petition without prejudice to the remedy open to the petitioners, we close the writ petition without prejudice to other remedy available. The other petition which must be dealt with is Writ Petition No.74 of 2017 (S/B). The relief sought in this writ petition is as follows:- “1. That this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari, order or direction to quash the Order and Judgment passed by learned Public Service Tribunal in Claim Petition No.16/NB/DB/2014, dated 9 November, 2016, Sanjeev Kumar Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, be quashed (contained as Annexure No.1 to the present writ petition.) 2. That the Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to further issue a writ, direction or Order in the nature of certiorari to quash the Promotion Order in the nature of certiorari to quash the Promotion Order of Respondent Nos.3 to 5 dated 03.06.2009. (Contained as Annexure No.2 to the present writ petition).” 19. Though, we have not issued notice to respondent nos.4 & 5, Mr. I.P. Gairola, learned counsel appearing for the claim petitioner in regard to relief no.1, accept notice. Since, we are inclined to allow the other writ petitions and remit back the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration, we would think that the relief no.1 can be granted. As far as the other reliefs, namely, challenge to the promotion of respondent nos.3 to 5 in the cadre of Assistant Engineer dated 30.06.2009 is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he would withdraw the relief sought in respect of the 2nd relief with liberty to approach the Tribunal. Such permission is granted. We make it very clear that it will be clearly open to the respondents to whom actually we have not issued notice (respondent nos.4 & 5) including respondent no. 3 to raise the issue relating to the laches. Such permission is granted. We make it very clear that it will be clearly open to the respondents to whom actually we have not issued notice (respondent nos.4 & 5) including respondent no. 3 to raise the issue relating to the laches. We leave it open to the respondents as also the Tribunal to deal with any such claim, if it is brought, both on the basis of the law relating the jurisdiction of the Tribunal besides also issue relating to the laches on the part of the petitioners in challenging their promotions. 20. In all the other cases, the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned order of the Tribunal will stand set aside. The matter will stand remitted to the Tribunal. In view of the fact that there is clear urgency in the matter, we direct that the matter will be disposed of as early as possible, at any rate, within a period of six weeks’ from 11.09.2017. We further order that the parties before this Court will appear before the Tribunal without any notice to them on 11.09.2017. The case will be taken up on 11.09.2017 and it will be proceeded with and we direct that the case be disposed of, as already noted, within a period of six weeks’ from 11.09.2017. We leave it open to the parties to introduce further pleadings. We further direct that, in the facts of this case, the Corporation will certainly bring on record the entire set of material facts and produce the resolutions by which the Rules were adopted besides the Rules themselves. The Corporation will do the same by 11.09.2017. 21. In the nature of the order, which we have passed, we deem it also necessary to direct that the Corporation will circulate to all the concerned employees about the order passed by this Court so that if they wish to join as parties in the Tribunal, they may do so. We order so. There will be no order as to costs. 22. We heard Mr. Shashank Pandey, Advocate in impleadment application nos.12287 of 2016, 2214 of 2017 and 2213 of 2017. In view of the course, we have adopted in this judgment, namely, remitting the matter back, we do not think it necessary to allow the application. However, we leave it open to the applicant to seek impleadment in the proceeding before the Tribunal. Shashank Pandey, Advocate in impleadment application nos.12287 of 2016, 2214 of 2017 and 2213 of 2017. In view of the course, we have adopted in this judgment, namely, remitting the matter back, we do not think it necessary to allow the application. However, we leave it open to the applicant to seek impleadment in the proceeding before the Tribunal. We make it clear that we have not allowed the impleadment application, as we are remitting the matter for consideration by the Tribunal. 23. The certified copy of the judgment will be made available by the learned counsel for the petitioners before the Tribunal on or before 05.09.2017, so that the case will be taken up on 11.09.2017, as we have said in the judgment.