JUDGMENT : 1. Vide this order above-mentioned four appeals would be disposed of, as they have arisen out of common order dated 22.03.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge. 2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the controversy involved in the present case relates to seniority determined between the parties vide seniority list dated 16.09.1994. Appellant was placed senior to the private respondents. However, learned Single Judge had erred in allowing the writ petitions filed by the private respondents and declaring that appellant was junior to the private respondents. Respondent B.S. Sharma had joined the department as Junior Engineer on 06.06.1978. Respondent Ashok Kumar Gupta had joined the department as Junior Engineer on 01.03.1979. Respondents Rajeev Pareek, Mahesh Chandra Sharma and the appellant V.K. Singhal had joined the department as Junior Engineer on 24.11.1984. Thereafter, they all were promoted as Assistant Engineer (later on known as Assistant Environmental Engineer) on ad hoc basis in the year 1988. Appellant was appointed as Assistant Engineer vide order dated 09.06.1989 on the basis of direct recruitment. 3. Learned Senior Counsel has further submitted that Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board Employees Service Rules and Regulations, 1993 were brought into force with effect from 30.03.1993. Screening Committee vide order dated 08.11.1993 appointed private respondents as Assistant Engineer. However, due to mistake the appellant was shown junior to the private respondents, whereas, the appellant had already been appointed as Assistant Engineer by way of direct recruitment vide order dated 09.06.1989. Thus, the appellant was much senior to the private respondents and had been rightly shown as senior to the private respondents in the seniority list in question. 4. Learned counsel for the private respondents have opposed the appeals and have submitted that the most important document was the order issued by the Screening Committee dated 08.11.1993. In the said order, appellant was shown junior to the private respondents. Learned Single Judge, after considering the entire factual matrix, had rightly allowed the writ petitions filed by the private respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board has submitted that the posts of Assistant Engineer (later on known as Assistant Environmental Engineer) were advertised for direct recruitment. Learned Single Judge, after considering the entire factual matrix, had rightly allowed the writ petitions filed by the private respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board has submitted that the posts of Assistant Engineer (later on known as Assistant Environmental Engineer) were advertised for direct recruitment. So far as the appellant V.K. Singhal is concerned, he was directly recruited as Assistant Engineer in open competition vide order dated 09.06.1989 (copy of the order already placed on record) whereas V.P. Poddar was directly recruited as Assistant Engineer vide order dated 15.04.1989 (copy of the order has been placed on record during the course of arguments). Hence, they were rightly shown senior to private respondents in the seniority list. It is only by mistake, appellant and V.P. Poddar were shown junior to private respondents in order dated 08.11.1993 by the Screening Committee. 6. The controversy involved in the present case is limited to the extent that as to whether seniority of the appellant was liable to be governed in terms of order of his appointment dated 09.06.1989 as Assistant Engineer on the basis of direct recruitment or order passed dated 08.11.1993 passed by the Screening Committee. 7. The facts in the present case are not in dispute. Passing of both the orders dated 09.06.1989 and 08.11.1993 are also not in dispute. Perusal of order dated 09.06.1989 reveals that appellant was appointed temporarily on the post of Assistant Engineer on probation period of ten months. Admittedly, appellant had taken the examination and after clearing the same had participated in the interview and thereafter, he was appointed by way of direct recruitment as Assistant Engineer vide order dated 09.06.1989. V.P. Poddar was appointed by way of direct recruitment vide order dated 15.04.1989. Thereafter, the Screening Committee vide order dated 08.11.1993 appointed the private respondents along with others as Assistant Engineer with effect from 30.03.1993. Name of appellant is mentioned at Serial No. 7 in the said order whereas the names of private respondents are above the names of the appellant and V.P. Poddar. It appears that due to mistake, name of the appellant was shown at Serial No. 7 in the order dated 08.11.1993 whereas appellant had already been appointed as Assistant Engineer on the basis of direct recruitment vide order dated 09.06.1989. It appears that due to mistake, name of the appellant was shown at Serial No. 7 in the order dated 08.11.1993 whereas appellant had already been appointed as Assistant Engineer on the basis of direct recruitment vide order dated 09.06.1989. It is also the stand of the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board that the names of the appellant and V.P. Poddar were shown in order dated 08.11.1993 by mistake. 8. Learned Single Judge has erred in discarding order dated 09.06.1989 and giving more importance to order dated 08.11.1993. In-fact, the names of the appellant and V.P. Poddar were not required to be mentioned in order dated 08.11.1993, as their case was not to be examined by the Screening Committee in view of the fact that they had already been appointed as Assistant Engineer on the basis of direct recruitment vide order dated 09.06.1989 and 15.04.1989 respectively. Appellant and V.P. Poddar could not be described as junior to the private respondents in view of order dated 08.11.1993. Apparently, impugned seniority list dated 16.09.1994 had been issued keeping in view the appointment orders of the appellant and V.P. Poddar by way of direct recruitment. Thus, there was no error in the impugned seniority list, whereby appellant and V.P. Poddar were declared senior to the private respondents. 9. Accordingly, appeals are allowed. Impugned order dated 22.03.2010 is set aside. 10. Consequently, writ petitions filed by the private respondents are dismissed.