JUDGMENT : S. N. Prasad, J - In both these writ petitions the issue related to fixation of seniority is involved, as such they have been decided to be heard together and accordingly heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The brief fact of the cases in both the writ petitions is that the petitioners have been deprived from participating in the selection process initiated for fulfilling the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police in the Railway Protection Force as per the provision of Rule 72 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987. The eligibility condition to participate in the selection process for consideration of the cases for promotion to the said post is that an employee working as Constable is required to complete ten continuous years of service but the petitioners are not having the ten continuous years of service but however they completed ten continuous years of service if the training period would be counted towards the period of service. All the petitioners have shown their willingness but in pursuance to the selection process initiated on 22.3.2010 for filling up of 20 vacancies for the year 2009-10 they have not been allowed to participate in the selection test which led them to approach this court by filing writ petitions being W.P.(C) Nos.6671 and 6672 of 2010 in which an interim order was passed on 13.4.2010 allowing the petitioners to participate in the recruitment test. The said writ petitions were finally been disposed of vide order dtd.28.4.2010 by a Division Bench of this Court, by putting reliance upon the provision of Rule 63.1 of R.P.F. Rules, 1987 by directing the authorities to publish the result of the petitioners, test of which was held on 28.4.2010 and consider the candidature of the petitioners for the post of ASI. The petitioners' results were published and they have been selected and promoted to the post of ASI and accordingly sent on training. The other set of employees who were similarly situated to that of writ petitioners of W.P.(C) Nos.6671 and 6672 of 2010 have also approached to this court after disposal of those two writ petitions by filing another writ petition being W.P.(C) No.2558 of 2011 and while disposing of the said writ petition vide order dtd.12.8. The other set of employees who were similarly situated to that of writ petitioners of W.P.(C) Nos.6671 and 6672 of 2010 have also approached to this court after disposal of those two writ petitions by filing another writ petition being W.P.(C) No.2558 of 2011 and while disposing of the said writ petition vide order dtd.12.8. 2001, this court has passed an order by directing the authority to extend the same benefit as has been extended to the writ petitioners of W.P.(C) Nos.6671 and 6672 of 2010 with a further direction upon the opposite parties to conduct examination in accordance with law inviting applications from the eligible persons and after publication of result the correct position of seniority must be maintained amongst the persons who will be found successful vis-?-vis the persons who are selected pursuance to the departmental examination held on 28.4.2010. The private opposite parties are the petitioners of W.P.(C) No.2558 of 2011 and they have shown their willingness to participate in the selection process for fulfilling 21 posts earmarked for the selection year 2011-12 and 8 vacancies which remained unfilled in the selection year 2009-10, total comes to 29 vacancies and they have been selected and promoted to the post of ASI. The private opposite parties, after their selection, have been included in the seniority list by publishing a provisional gradation list along with the petitioners in pursuance to the observation made by the division bench of this court in W.P.(C) No.2558 of 2011 also by inviting objections from the aggrieved for publication of final gradation list. These petitioners have filed these two writ petitions invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction conferred to this court under Article 226 of the constitution of India by seeking a direction that the private opposite parties, who have been appointed in terms of altogether a separate selection process, may not be given parity by treating them as appointees of the year 2009-10, selection of which was conducted on 28.4.2010. 3. The opposite parties - State as well as private opposite parties have appeared and contested their case. 3. The opposite parties - State as well as private opposite parties have appeared and contested their case. They have raised the issue that the private opposite parties who have been selected in terms of the order passed by this court in W.P.(C) No.2558 of 2011 where there is specific observation to place them in the correct place of seniority who will be found successful vis-?-vis the persons who are selected pursuant to the departmental examination held on 28.4.2010, according to them, they have been allowed to participate in pursuance to the direction passed by this court in W.P.(C) No.2558 of 2011 in terms thereof they have been selected and promoted to the post of ASI, as such in view of the observation made in W.P.(C) No.2558 of 2011, they have rightly been placed by treating them as appointees of the year 2009-10, i.e. in pursuance to the said observation passed by the Division Bench of this court in the said writ petition, as such there is no illegality in the same. They further submit that only the provisional gradation list has been published and still the authority is to take final decision but in the meanwhile these writ petitions have been filed, hence these writ petitions are premature since the petitioners have approached invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court during pendency of the final decision to be taken by the authorities, as such it has been submitted that the writ petitions may not be entertained by holding that these are premature. 4. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and on appreciation of their rival submission it is evident that the question of inter se seniority in between the petitioners vis-?-vis the private opposite parties are involved. It is further evident that the petitioners as well as the private opposite parties are the promoted employees to the post of ASI under RPF. The fact which is not in dispute in these cases is that willingness has been sought for for fulfilling 20 vacancies of ASI for the selection year 2009-10 on 22.3.2010. The eligibility condition for making one or the other employees eligible to participate in the selectiuon process to fill up the post of ASI through promotion is that the employee is to complete ten continuous years of service. The eligibility condition for making one or the other employees eligible to participate in the selectiuon process to fill up the post of ASI through promotion is that the employee is to complete ten continuous years of service. Admittedly, the petitioners were not completing at the time of filling their application forms the ten years of continuous service, as such they have not been allowed to participate in the selection process, in consequcne thereof, they have approached to this court by invoking the extra ordinary jurisidction conferred under Article 226 and 227 of the constitution of India by filing two writ petitions being W.P.(C) Nos.6671 and 6672 of 2010, inter alia praying therein to allow them to participate in the selection process by including the training period towards counting ten continuous years of service as per the provison contained in Rule 63.1 of the RPF Rules, 1987. This court, by way of an interim order dtd.13.4.2010, has directed the opposite parties to allow the petitioners to participate in the recruitment test, in pursuance thereto the petitioners were allowed to participate in the recruitment test conducted on 28.4.2010. Subsequently both the writ petitions i.e. W.P.(C) Nos.6671 and 6672 of 2010 have been disposed of by passing an order to count the training period against the continuous service in the light of the provision as contained in Regulation 63.1 of the RPF Rules, 1987 as also the opposite party has been directed to publish the result, in consequence thereof the result was published and the petitioners having found to be successful, have been selected and promoted to the post of ASI and then have been sent for training. 5. The other set of employees who are the private opposite parties herein, since were not party to both the writ petitions, i.e. W.P.(C) Nos.6671 and 6672 of 2010, could not be able to participate in the selection process since they were not fulfilling the eligibility criteria of 10 years of continuous service, as such after completion of the selection process for the selection year 2009-10 they have come to this court by filing writ petition being W.P.(C) No.2558 of 2011 on 4.2.2011 and a Division Bench of this Court, while disposing of the writ petition, has passed the following orders at paragraph 7 and 8 of the writ petition which are being quoted herein below:- "7. Once this court held that the training period should be counted towards calculating 10 years of service to make eligible the petitioners to participate in the selection process for the posts of ASI, it is for the competent authority to take a decision in this regard applying his mind properly and there is no necessity on the part of the court to make any further clarification. It is clear that for non-application of mind of the competent authority the present petitioners have again come before this court. 8. In our considered opinion petitioners are entitled for relief as has been granted in the aforesaid two writ petitions as the said benefit was denied to them in the earlier examination though some of them are admittedly senior to the petitioners in the earlier two writ petitions. Therefore, we direct the opposite party to conduct examination in accordance with law inviting applications from the eligible persons and after publication of the result the correct place of seniority must be maintained amongst the persons who will be found successful vis-?-vis the persons who are selected pursuant to departmental examination held on 28.4.2010." The private opposite parties, in terms of the order passed in W.P.(C) No.2558 of 2011, have participated in the selection process and accordingly selected and promoted to the post of ASI and also sent for training. The authorities, in the light of the observation made by the Division Bench of this court in W.P.(C) No.2558 of 2011, has placed them in the seniority list along with the persons who are selected pursuant to the departmental examination held on 28.4.2010 and accordingly published the provisional gradation list inviting objections from the aggrieved. In the light of the said observation the petitioners have submitted their objections which would be evident from the statement made by the opposite parties at paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit wherein it has been stated that for fixation of seniority as per the direction of this court, a committee has been formed and proceeding of fixation of seniority is under process. No seniority list has been published as yet, for ready reference the said paragraph is being quoted herein below:- "3. x xx xx xx xx xx. But for fixation of seniority as per direction of Hon'ble High Court a committee has been formed and the proceeding of fixation of seniority is under process. No seniority list has been published as yet, for ready reference the said paragraph is being quoted herein below:- "3. x xx xx xx xx xx. But for fixation of seniority as per direction of Hon'ble High Court a committee has been formed and the proceeding of fixation of seniority is under process. No seniority list has been published as yet. As such the writ petition is pre-mature and suffers from malafide as the petitioners are fainted with bias and misinterpretation of fact." It is thus evident that the petitioners have approached this court against the provisional gradation list which is pending consideration before a committee and the final gradation list has not yet been published, as such in my considered view, the writ petition has not matured to be decided on its merit. 6. So far as the contention of the petitioners on merit is concerned, the ground taken by them is that the private opposite parties cannot be treated at par with them by inserting them in the seniority position treating them the appointees of the year 2009-10, in my considered view this argument is not available to the petitioners for the reason that the Division Bench of this court, while disposing of the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.2558 of 2011, has specifically directed to conduct examination in accordance with law inviting applications from the eligible persons and after publication of result the correct place of seniority must be maintained amongst the persons who will be found successful vis-?-vis the persons who are selected pursuant to departmental examination held on 28.4.2010. It has been informed to the court that the order passed by the Division Bench of this court in W.P.(C) No.2558 of 2011 has never been assailed by the petitioners, as such the direction passed by this court as quoted above is binding upon them vis-?-vis upon the opposite parties. 7. It has been informed to the court that the order passed by the Division Bench of this court in W.P.(C) No.2558 of 2011 has never been assailed by the petitioners, as such the direction passed by this court as quoted above is binding upon them vis-?-vis upon the opposite parties. 7. This court, at this stage, is not inclined to entertain the prayer made by the petitioners in the writ petitions considering the fact that a committee has been constituted by the opposite parties to look into the matter for fixation of inter se seniority, as such declined to interfere with the decision of the authorities, however with the observation that the committee, while taking final decision, will take into consideration the direction passed by the Division Bench of this court in W.P.(C) No.2558 of 2011 as quoted above. Accordingly the writ petitions stands disposed of. Final Result : Disposed