JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Adeshra, learned advocate for petitioners and Mr. Mrugen Purohit, learned advocate for respondents and Mr. Rakesh Patel, learned AGP. 2. In SCA No. 11825 of 2014, the petitioners have prayed, inter alia, that: “6(A) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction by ordering/directing the respondent nos. 1 to 5 to follow the Recruitment Rules dtd.5.10.1981 as amended on 10.12.1984 for filling up the post of Dy. Executive Engineer (Mechanical) and filling up the posts of Dy. Executive Engineer (Mechanical) by Promotion and Direct Recruit in the ratio of 4:1 and fix their seniority from the date on which the petitioners were due for promotion and further be pleased to quash and set aside the order dtd. 25.6.2014 at Annexure-B passed by Under Secretary, Narmada Water Resources, Water Supply and Kalpsar Department of the State Government”. 3. In SCA No. 9271 of 2014, the petitioners have prayed, inter alia, that: “8(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside order dated 25-6-2014 whereby respondent authority has sought to fill up the vacancies of the Deputy Executive Engineers (Mechanical) in excess of the quota as prescribed under the Recruitment Rules for the post of Deputy Executive Engineers (Mechanical), being illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice”. 4. The respondent employees (in both petitions) are direct recruits. 5. The captioned petitions came to be filed at the stage when the respondents came to be appointed, by way of direct recruitment, as Deputy Executive Engineer. 6. The petitioner felt aggrieved because at the time, according to petitioners, the ratio namely 4:1 was not maintained/followed. 7. Of course, the said case of the petitioners is disputed by the respondent employees as well as the respondent State. 8. The Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 who claim that the petitioners are relying on unamended provisions which are not applicable in present case. 9. Be that at it may, the relevant facts at this stage is that during the pendency of the petition, even the petitioners have been promoted to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer. 10. In that view of the matter, so far as the grievance of the petitioners against their non promotion is concerned, does not survive. 11. 9. Be that at it may, the relevant facts at this stage is that during the pendency of the petition, even the petitioners have been promoted to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer. 10. In that view of the matter, so far as the grievance of the petitioners against their non promotion is concerned, does not survive. 11. However, learned advocate for the petitioner is justified in claiming that the said subsequent promotion of the petitioners has given rise to another dispute namely dispute with regard to interse seniority. 12. In this context, it is necessary to note that the said dispute or claim is not subject matter of present petition. Neither any grievance on that count is raised nor any claim on that count is made nor any relief on that count is prayed for. Therefore, it is not necessary to enter into and deliberate said issue. 13. Even otherwise at this stage the said issue does not arise i.e. it is premature at this stage because until now/at this stage neither seniority is fixed nor seniority list is prepared and notified. 14. Further after the respondents came to be appointed as direct recruit to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer and even after the petitioners came to be promoted to the said post, even provisional seniority list is not prepared and declared by the respondents. 15. This means that the interse seniority list is yet to be finalised by the competent authority and the petitioner's grievance is actually premature apprehension, atleast at this stage. 16. At the stage when provisional seniority list is prepared, the direct recruits as well as promotees will get opportunity to raise objection, if any, against fixation of seniority. 17. Even thereafter when seniority list is finalised and interse seniority is fixed, the aggrieved persons will get opportunity to challenge, in accordance with law and at appropriate stage, the seniority list/fixation of seniority. 18. In light of the fact that until now any decision with regard to seniority is not taken and either provisional seniority list or final seniority list are not even prepared and fixation of seniority list is not subject matter of the present petition, it appears that in view of subsequent development viz. 18. In light of the fact that until now any decision with regard to seniority is not taken and either provisional seniority list or final seniority list are not even prepared and fixation of seniority list is not subject matter of the present petition, it appears that in view of subsequent development viz. that even the petitioners are not promoted to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer, the principal grievance of the petitioners is accordingly redressed, the petition can be disposed of at this stage with appropriate clarification so that the right or claim of the petitioners and/or direct recruits are not directly affected or jeopardized. 19. In this view of the matter, following order is passed: (a). Having regard to the fact that the petitioners have been promoted to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer, the cause to prosecute present petition does not survive. Therefore the Petition is rendered infructuous. (b). However, the petitioners and the respondents claim that after the appointment of direct recruit and promotion of the petitioners, dispute with regard to seniority may arise when the competent authority finalise seniority list. (c). The issue of interse seniority is not subject matter of the present petition. Since any list are not prepared there is neither need nor justification to enter into the said grievance or dispute/subject and there is no justification to make any observation with regard to the said issue. (d). At this stage, actually the said submission by the petitioners and respondents is in realm of apprehension and that matter is premature. (e). In this view of the matter it is clarified that as and when the competent authority determines the seniority, either provisionally or finally, it will be open to the petitioners and respondents to submit their respective (individual or joint) objections. (f). For the said purpose, the competent authority will provide sufficient time and opportunity to the petitioners and respondents. (g). After the petitioners and/or respondents submit their respective objections against the (proposed) fixation of seniority, the competent authority shall take into consideration the said objection and thereafter finalise interse seniority of the concerned employees including petitioners and respondents. (h). If, even thereafter, any grievance or dissatisfaction or dispute survives, either on the part of the petitioners or the respondents or any other concerned/affected employees, it will be open to the said employee to pursue appropriate remedy in accordance with law. (i). (h). If, even thereafter, any grievance or dissatisfaction or dispute survives, either on the part of the petitioners or the respondents or any other concerned/affected employees, it will be open to the said employee to pursue appropriate remedy in accordance with law. (i). It is also clarified that at this stage the Court has not entered into the said issue/subject and that therefore this order shall not be construed as expression of any opinion or view of the Court with regard to interse seniority of direct recruit or promotee and this order shall not stand in way of the petitioners or respondents, to pursue appropriate remedy. 20. Accordingly the petition is disposed of. Notice discharged.