JUDGMENT : 1. Heard, Shri Pt.S.Chandra, learned counsel for the appellants, learned Standing Counsel for opposite parties no.1 and 2 and Shri Anupras Singh, learned counsel for opposite parties no.3 to 7. 2. The preset intra court special appeal under Chapter-VIII, Rule-5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 has been filed against the judgment and order dated 11.01.2017 passed in writ petition no.15791 (SS) of 2016. 3. The brief facts of the case are that Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Institute of Medical Sciences, Gomti Nagar (here-in-after referred as Institute) issued an advertisement on 08.07.2009 and invited applications for recruitment on various posts including the post of Sister Grade-II to be filled by direct recruitment. Pursuant to the advertisement a merit list was prepared as per merit of the candidates according to Rules and selections were made by the Institute accordingly on the post of Sister Grade-II. The Institute prepared a select list as per the application of reservation and Roster in the selections for the post of Sister Grade-II as per bye-laws of the Institute and in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Casts, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 (here-in-after referred as Reservation Act 1994). For determining the seniority of the post of Sister Grade-II in the Institute the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991 (here-in-after referred as Seniority Rules 1991) are applicable. Accordingly the Institute issued a tentative seniority list on 09.06.2014 for the post of Sister Grade-II in accordance with the Rule 5 of the Seniority Rules 1991. The objections were invited against the tentative seniority list. Twenty four (24) employees working on the post of Sister Grade-II including the appellants submitted their objections. After considering the objections, the Institute issued the final seniority list dated 13.05.2016. 4. The State Government sanctioned a number of posts for the Institute including 30 posts for Sister Grade-I by means of order dated 16.11.2016, which are to be filled on the basis of promotion from the eligible candidates working on the post of Sister Grade-II on the basis of the final seniority list. A Departmental Promotion Committed was constituted and after examining the eligibility of the employees according to their seniority in the final seniority list, promotions were made on the post of Sister Grade-I from the post of Sister Grade-II by means of order dated 04.06.2016. 5. A Departmental Promotion Committed was constituted and after examining the eligibility of the employees according to their seniority in the final seniority list, promotions were made on the post of Sister Grade-I from the post of Sister Grade-II by means of order dated 04.06.2016. 5. The appellants preferred a writ petition No.15791 (SS) of 2016 challenging the promotion order dated 04.06.2016 on the post of Sister Grade-I issued by the Director of the Institute and the order dated 13.05.2016 by means of which final seniority list of Sister Grade-II was issued. The petitioners further prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to determine and maintain the seniority list after disposal of objections and looking the ranks of the petitioners in the list of selection and to promote the petitioners on the post of Sister Grade-I w.e.f. 04.06.2016 alongwith whole benefits of service. The writ petition was contested by the respondents by filing a short counter affidavit. However, notices to the private respondents no.8 to 24 were not issued as the controversy involved in the writ petition being a pure question of law. After summoning and looking the relevant record and considering the submissions of the parties, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by means of judgment and order dated 11.01.2017. 6. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 11.01.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge the present Special Appeal has been filed. 7. Submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that the appellants alongwith private respondents were selected and appointed on the post of Sister Grade-II on the basis of one and the same selection held by the Institute. A tentative seniority list was issued on 19.06.2014. The appellants had submitted their objections and each and every objection was required to be considered and disposed of as per Rule 9 of the Seniority Rules 1991 before issuing the final seniority list. But without considering the same individually and passing any order thereon a final seniority list was issued on the basis of the select list of the Sister Grade-II issued on 19.11.2009 which is not the final select list and it was a Interview mark sheet while final select list was issued on 01.02.2010. But without considering the same individually and passing any order thereon a final seniority list was issued on the basis of the select list of the Sister Grade-II issued on 19.11.2009 which is not the final select list and it was a Interview mark sheet while final select list was issued on 01.02.2010. His submission is that the seniority list should have been prepared and issued in accordance with the Rule 5 of the Seniority Rules, 1991 on the basis of the final merit list prepared by the Committee as it was the case of inter-se seniority of the persons appointed on the result of one selection. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the learned Single Judge has wrongly and illegally held that the seniority list has rightly been prepared in accordance with law without considering the pleadings and material available on record. Therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. 8. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents no.3 to 7 has submitted that the appointments on the post of Sister Grade-II were made in pursuance of the advertisement dated 08.07.2009 by a duly constituted Selection Committee in accordance with the terms of provisions contained in para 33(4) of the bye-laws. After examining the candidates the Selection Committee had prepared a final merit list on the basis of merit according to Rules and the selections were made accordingly by the Institute. The State Government had issued the Roster by means of the Notification dated 25.06.2002 for applying reservation in accordance with Section 3(5) of the Reservation Act 1994. Accordingly a select list was prepared showing the application of reservation and Roster in the selections for the post of Sister Grade-II. However, this is not a merit list prepared by the Selection Committee. It is only a select list of candidates, who had faced the selection and had been selected on the basis of policy of reservation in accordance with the roster. As per bye-laws of the Institute the provisions of the Seniority Rules, 1991 are applicable. Accordingly a tentative seniority list was issued on 09.06.2014 in accordance with Rule 5 of Seniority Rules 1991 inviting objections. In response thereof 24 employees had submitted their objections including the petitioners. All the objections received from the employees were duly redressed by the Institute in a proper and reasoned manner. Accordingly a tentative seniority list was issued on 09.06.2014 in accordance with Rule 5 of Seniority Rules 1991 inviting objections. In response thereof 24 employees had submitted their objections including the petitioners. All the objections received from the employees were duly redressed by the Institute in a proper and reasoned manner. He submitted that all the objections have been mentioned in the final seniority list, which indicates that mainly the objectors wanted to know as to how the seniority list has been prepared. After considering the same and deciding the objections a final seniority list was issued on 13.05.2016. The names of the employees including the appellants have been arranged in the same order as appear in the merit list prepared on the basis of merit of the Selection Committee. After issuance of the final seniority list the promotions have been made in accordance with law after due consideration by the Departmental Promotion Committee in order of seniority from Sister Grade-II to Sister Grade-I. The appellants being much lower in merit could not be considered and promoted. 9. On the basis of above, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the action has been taken in accordance with law and there is no illegality and infirmity in the same. Learned Single Judge has rightly considered and rejected the claim of the writ petitioners after perusing the original records. There is no error in the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bimlesh Tanwar Versus State of Haryana and others, (2003) 5 SCC 604 and Ajit Singh and others (II) Versus State of Punjab and others, (1999) 7 SCC 209 . 11. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the record. 12. The Institute has been set up as an Autonomous Super Specialty Medical Institute to provide specialized medical services to the patients and for imparting medical education. It is governed in terms of its Bye Laws which are registered under the Societies Registration Act 1860. 11. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the record. 12. The Institute has been set up as an Autonomous Super Specialty Medical Institute to provide specialized medical services to the patients and for imparting medical education. It is governed in terms of its Bye Laws which are registered under the Societies Registration Act 1860. In pursuance of the advertisement issued on 08.07.2009, in respect of various posts including the posts of Sister Grade-II, the selections were made and the petitioners alongwith others were selected on the post of Sister Grade-II, after consideration by the Selection Committee constituted in terms of para 33(4) of the Bye Laws and merit list prepared by the Committee. Thereafter a list of selected candidates was prepared and issued after applying the reservation in accordance with Section 3(5) of the Reservation Act 1994 and the Roster issued by the Government on 25.06.2002. 13. Section 3 of the Reservation Act 1994 is extracted as under:- "3. Reservation in favour of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes. Thereafter a list of selected candidates was prepared and issued after applying the reservation in accordance with Section 3(5) of the Reservation Act 1994 and the Roster issued by the Government on 25.06.2002. 13. Section 3 of the Reservation Act 1994 is extracted as under:- "3. Reservation in favour of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes. -[(1) In public services and posts, there shall be reserved at the stage of direct recruitment, the following percentage of vacancies to which recruitment's are to be made in accordance with the roster referred to in sub-section (5) in favour of the persons belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes of citizens:- (a) In the case of Scheduled Castes Twenty-one per cent; (b) In the case of Scheduled Tribes Two per cent; (c) In case of Other Backward Classes of citizens Twenty-seven per cent: Provided that the reservation under clause (c) shall not apply to the category of Other Backward Classes of citizens specified in Schedule II : Provided further that reservation of vacancies for all categories of persons shall not exceed in any year of recruitment fifty per cent of the total vacancies of that year as also fifty per cent of the cadre strength of the service to which the recruitment is to be made; (2) If, in respect of any year of recruitment any vacancy reserved for any category of persons under sub-section (1) remains unfilled, such vacancy shall be carried forward and be filled through special recruitment in that very year or in succeeding year or years of recruitment as a separate class of vacancy and such class of vacancy shall not be considered together with the vacancies of the year of recruitment in which it is filled and also for the purpose of determining the ceiling of fifty per cent reservation of the total vacancies of that year notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in sub-section (1);] [(3) Where a suitable candidate belonging to the Scheduled Tribes on Scheduled Castes, as the case may be, is not available in a recruitment either under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) the vacancy reserved for him may be filled in such recruitment, from amongst the suitable candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, as the case may be, and as soon as a vacancy earmarked in the losses referred to in sub-section (5) for the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, as the case may be, arises such person belonging to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, as the case may be, shall be adjusted against such vacancy of his own category.] [x x x] (4) (x x x] [(5) The State Government shall for applying the reservation under sub-section (1), by a notified order, issue a roster comprising the total cadre strength of the public service or post indicating therein the reserve points and the roster so issued shall be implemented in the form of a running account from year to year until the reservation for various categories of persons mentioned in sub-section (1) is achieved and the operation of the roster and the running account shall, thereafter, come to an end, and when a vacancy arises thereafter in public service or post the same shall be filled from amongst the persons belonging to the category to which the post belongs in the roster.] (6) If a person belonging to any of the categories mentioned in subsection (1) gets selected on the basis of merit in an open competition with general candidates, he shall not be adjusted against the vacancies reserved for such category under sub-section (1)." 14. By virtue of clause 33 of the Bye Laws the service conditions of all employees of the Society will be the same as those laid down from time to time by the State Government for State Government employees of the same level. Accordingly the seniority is to be determined in accordance with Seniority Rules, 1991 issued by the Government. 15. In the present case the seniority list has been prepared in accordance with Rule 5 of the Seniority Rules 1991 as it is a case where the inter-se-seniority of the persons appointed on the basis of one selection by direct recruitment has been prepared. The Rule 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants Seniority Rules 1991 is reproduced as under:- "5. Seniority where appointments by direct recruitment only.- Where according to the service rules appointments are to be made only by the direct recruitment the seniority inter se of the persons appointed on the result of any one selection, shall be the same as it is shown in the merit list prepared by the Commission or the Committee, as the case may be: Provided that a candidate recruited directly may lose his seniority, if he fails to join without valid reasons when vacancy is offered to him the decision of the appointing authority as to the validity of reasons, shall be final: Provided further that the persons appointed on the result of a subsequent selection shall be junior to persons appointed on the result of a previous selection. Explanation.- Where in the same year separate selections for regular and emergency recruitment, are made, the selection for regular recruitment shall be deemed to be the previous selection. 16. As per Rule 5 of the Seniority Rules 1991 a tentative seniority list was issued as per the merit list prepared by the Committee. A select list dated 01.02.2010 was prepared after applying the Reservation Act 1994 and in accordance with the Roster issued by the State Government on 25.06.2002 and accordingly a recommendation was made for appointment. The appointments were made accordingly. But that cannot be treated a merit list as it is prepared as per the roster prepared by the Government for application of the provisions of the Reservation Act. 17. It appears that 24 employees had submitted their objections against the tentative seniority list dated 19.06.2014. After considering the objections a final seniority list was issued on 13.05.2016. But that cannot be treated a merit list as it is prepared as per the roster prepared by the Government for application of the provisions of the Reservation Act. 17. It appears that 24 employees had submitted their objections against the tentative seniority list dated 19.06.2014. After considering the objections a final seniority list was issued on 13.05.2016. All the objections of 24 employees are mentioned in the final seniority list. Perusal of which shows that the Objectors mainly wanted to know the basis of preparation of the seniority list. After considering the same it has been recorded that the seniority is prepared on the basis of Rule 5 of the Seniority Rules 1991 as the selections are made only by direct recruitment and on the basis of one and the same selection. Thereafter the other objections of certain employees have been considered and redressed. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the objections have not been considered and disposed of is misconceived and repelled. Merely because the identical objections have been decided together and not separately cannot be a ground to challenge and quash the seniority list. 18. Learned counsel for the appellants has also failed to indicate as to which of the objection of the appellants has not been considered by the respondents. 19. The Rule 5 of the Seniority Rules 1991 provides that where according to the service Rules appointments are to be made only by the direct recruitment the seniority inter-se of the persons appointed on the result of any one selection, shall be the same as it is shown in the merit list prepared by the Commission or the Committee, as the case may be. In the case in hand the selections on the post of Sister Grade-II were made on the basis of direct recruitment held in the year 2009 and all the employees were appointed on the basis of one selection. Therefore, the seniority shall be the same as it is shown in the merit list, a copy of which has been annexed by the respondents as Annexure no.SCA-2, which indicates the marks of the candidates in accordance with the merit of candidates in general category and reserve categories. Therefore, the seniority shall be the same as it is shown in the merit list, a copy of which has been annexed by the respondents as Annexure no.SCA-2, which indicates the marks of the candidates in accordance with the merit of candidates in general category and reserve categories. Since it has been disputed by the petitioners by saying that it is Interview mark sheet, therefore, the respondents have also filed a list indicating the marks obtained by the selected candidates in the select list dated 01.02.2010 prepared on the basis of merit list after applying reservation in accordance with the Roster. 20. The marks shown by the respondents have not been disputed by the appellants and the only objection taken in the rejoinder affidavit is that the list annexed as SCA-3 to the counter affidavit is vague and the same is not in accordance with the provisions of seniority list issued in the year 1994, which cannot be accepted because the selection in question was held in the year 2009, therefore, the question of issuance of any seniority list prior to that does not arise. 21. The sole criteria of selection was the interview and the appellants and other candidates were selected on the basis of interview, which has also been recorded by the learned Single Judge after perusing the records. 22. It is also not a case of the appellants that except Interview any other exam was held and the marks of which were required to be added. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants, that the merit list prepared by the Selection Committee on 19.11.2009 is not a merit list, because Interview mark sheet is mentioned on the top of it, is misconceived and not acceptable. The marks of the recommended and appointed candidates given by the respondents in Roster wise select list of Sister Grade-II, annexed at page 72-74 of the short counter affidavit, indicates that they are not in order of their merit, therefore, it cannot be treated to be a merit list prepared by the Selection Committee on the basis of which the seniority list can be prepared in accordance with Rule 5 of Seniority Rules 1991. 23. There is distinction in merit list and select list. 23. There is distinction in merit list and select list. Merit list is prepared by the Commission or the Committee, as the case may be, on the basis of marks obtained by all the candidates in order of their merit. The select list is prepared from the merit list against the number of posts advertised/available for selection after applying the reservation etc. 24. The issue of reservation and effect of Roster of the reservation has been considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ajit Singh and others (II) Versus State of Punjab and others, (1999) 7 SCC 209 and it has been held that roster points fixed at Level 1 are not intended to determine any seniority at Level 1 between general candidates and the reserved candidates. The relevant paragraphs 40 and 42 of the judgment are reproduced as under:- "40. It must be noted that whenever a reserved candidate goes for recruitment at the initial level (say Level 1), he is not going through the normal process of selection which is applied to a general candidate but gets appointment to a post reserved for his group. That is what is meant by 'reservation'. That is the effect of 'reservation'. 42. It deserves to be noticed that the roster points fixed at Level 1 are not intended to determine any seniority at Level 1 between general candidates and the reserved candidates. This aspect we shall consider again when we come to Mervyn Continho vs. Collector of Customs, (1966) 3 SCR 600 lower down. The roster point merely becomes operative whenever a vacancy reserved at Level 2 becomes available. Once such vacancies are all filled, the roster has worked itself out. Thereafter other reserved candidates can be promoted only when a vacancy at the reserved points already filled arises. That was what was decided in R.K. Sabharwal vs. State of Punjab." 25. In paragraph 71 of the said judgment of Ajit Singh (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Roster in the cases of reservation under Article 16(4) or Article 16(4-A) are not intended to determine seniority but are merely intended to provide adequate representation. The relevant paragraph 71 is reproduced as under:- "71. In paragraph 71 of the said judgment of Ajit Singh (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Roster in the cases of reservation under Article 16(4) or Article 16(4-A) are not intended to determine seniority but are merely intended to provide adequate representation. The relevant paragraph 71 is reproduced as under:- "71. The above decision in Mervyn cannot apply to a case of reservation because the roster in Mervyn was intended to determine seniority while the roster in the cases of reservation under Article 16 (4) or Article 16(4A) are not intended to determine seniority but are merely intended to provide "adequate representation" at the promotional level." 26. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bimlesh Tanwar Versus State of Haryana and others, (2003) 5 SCC 604 has held that the seniority is not to be fixed in terms of the roster points. The relevant paragraph 40 is reproduced as under:- "40. An affirmative action in terms of Article 16(4) of the Constitution is meant for providing a representation of class of citizenry who are socially or economically backward. Article 16 of the Constitution of India is applicable in the case of an appointment. It does not speak of fixation of seniority. Seniority is, thus, not to be fixed in terms of the roster points. If that is done, the rule of affirmative action would be extended which would strictly not be in consonance of the constitutional schemes. We are of the opinion that the decision in P.S. Ghalaut does not lay down a good law." 27. In view of above the select list prepared on the basis of roster points issued to complete the quota of reservations in terms of Rule 3 of the Reservation Act 1994 does not entitle the appellants to claim seniority, rather the seniority is to be determined in accordance with the merit list prepared by the Selection Committee. 28. The learned Single Judge after considering the legal position and the relevant clauses has dismissed the writ petition. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:- "On a careful consideration of the submissions made before this Court, it is found that the sole criteria of selection was the interview and all the petitioners and promotee respondents were selected in one and the same selection. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:- "On a careful consideration of the submissions made before this Court, it is found that the sole criteria of selection was the interview and all the petitioners and promotee respondents were selected in one and the same selection. Therefore, in the matter of treating the candidates equally as per the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, there is no doubt that the marks obtained in the selection process would alone determine the merit of candidates rather the placement in the select list which adheres to the roster having regard to the rule of reservation. Judgements cited by learned counsel for the petitioners on the principle of law projected by him are of no help and do not stand the test of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Rule 5 of the Seniority Rules while referring to the merit list prepared by the Committee intends nothing other than what follows as a result of selection process in terms of the marks or grade. Implementation of roster by issuing a select list is to serve the classification which is held reasonable looking to the scope of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Thus, there is a distinction between the select list and merit list and the seniority being dependent upon the merit, it cannot be said that the respondents have proceeded on a wrong premise. This view also finds support from the apex court judgements in the case of Ajit Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, (1999) 7 SCC 209 and Bimlesh Tanwar v. State of Haryana and others, (2003) 5 SCC 604 , which have been relied upon by the respondents. Once the principle in the manner stated above is found just and legally tenable, interference in the impugned seniority list as well as promotion is not made out and the writ petition does not call for any interference and the same is accordingly dismissed." 29. We do not find any illegality or error in the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. Thus, the special appeal has been filed on misconceived and baseless grounds, which is devoid of merit. 30. The Special Appeal is accordingly dismissed. 31. No order as to costs.