ORDER : Writ petition No.1883/2018 concerns a challenge to the seniority list in the cadre of Assistant Professors of Anaesthesia Department of third respondent -Bangalore Medical College and Research Institute and writ petition No.2014/2018 concerns a challenge to the seniority list in the cadre of Associate Professors working in the Bangalore Medical College and Research Institute. 2. Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows:- The Bangalore Medical College when it was established was yet to become a teaching hospital and on 16.01.2006, the Bangalore Medical College became an autonomous institute and a teaching hospital and was later called as Bangalore Medical College and Research Institute (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Institute’ for short). 3. It transpires that on 17.04.2006, the Government of India approved a proposal for upgradation of the Institute, under a particular scheme called Pradhana Mantri Swasthya Suraksha Yojana Scheme (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Scheme’ for short) to the level of All India Institute of Medical Sciences. The State of Karnataka on 12.03.2008, constituted a Monitoring Committee to review the progress of the activities by establishing Super Speciality Hospital at the Institute. In furtherance of the construction and establishment that took place in terms of the Scheme, a Government Order dated 28.05.2011, was issued, by which certain posts were created in the Super Speciality Hospital which was established in terms of the Scheme and six posts of Assistant Professor and three posts of Associate Professor were also created. 4. On creation of the aforesaid posts, a notification was issued by the Super Speciality Hospital on 26.12.2011, calling for an applications from eligible candidates for selection through walk in interview. It is in pursuance to the said notification, the fifth to seventh respondents in W.P.No.1883/2018 and fifth and sixth respondents in W.P.No.2014/2018, participated and were selected and appointed as Assistant Professors and Associate Professors in the Department of Anaesthesia in the Super Speciality Hospital. 5. On 30.04.2013, the third respondent – Institute brought out its Rules and Regulations in the year 2013, namely, Bangalore Medical College and Research Institute Rules and Regulations 2013. After which, on 20.02.2015, a notification was issued by the Institute and pursuant to which, in the selection process, the petitioners were appointed as Assistant Professors and Associate Professors respectively and were placed on probation. The petitioners were confirmed on satisfactory completion of their probation. After which, on 20.02.2015, a notification was issued by the Institute and pursuant to which, in the selection process, the petitioners were appointed as Assistant Professors and Associate Professors respectively and were placed on probation. The petitioners were confirmed on satisfactory completion of their probation. By the time the petitioners could be confirmed in service, a provisional seniority list in all the cadres of the Institute was notified on 20.01.2016 as obtaining on 01.01.2016. Though the names of the petitioners were found in the said list, the names of the fifth to seventh respondents in W.P.No.1883/2018 and fifth and sixth respondents in W.P.No.2014/2018 were not found on the ground that they were employees of the super speciality hospital. The aforesaid respondents filed their objections to the said provisional seniority list and on consideration of the objections, their names were brought into the seniority list of the Institute, in the cadres of Assistant Professor and Associate Professor. In this seniority list notified on 21.12.2017, petitioners were shown below the aforesaid respondents on the ground that the petitioners had entered service on 21.02.2015, whereas, the aforesaid respondents had entered service on 28.08.2012. It is this seniority list that is impugned in both the petitions. 6. Heard Sri Harikrishna S. Holla, learned counsel for petitioners and Smt. Sharadamba A.R., learned Additional Government Advocate for the State in both the petitions, Sri A.D.Ramananda, learned counsel for second respondent, Sri Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for fifth to seventh respondents in writ petition No.1883/2018, Sri P.S.Malipatil, learned counsel for third and fourth respondents in writ petition No.1883/2018 and third respondent in writ petition No.2014/2018, Sri Sanjay Nair, learned Central Government Counsel for second respondent, Smt. Sumana Baliga, learned Counsel for fourth respondent, Sri G. Shrihari, learned Counsel for fifth respondent and Sri Vijay V. Bajenthri, learned counsel for sixth respondent in writ petition No.2014/2018. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the cases would submit that fifth to seventh respondents in writ petition No.1883/2018 and fifth and sixth respondents in writ petition No.2014/2018, were not employees of the Institute as they were appointed separately, have always been treated separately by the super speciality hospital and their seniority also was determined separately. Provisional seniority list was notified on 20.01.2016 and the names of the aforesaid respondents did not even figure. Provisional seniority list was notified on 20.01.2016 and the names of the aforesaid respondents did not even figure. Therefore, he would submit that bringing the names of the aforesaid respondents in the impugned final seniority list is contrary to law and they cannot be a part of the seniority list of the Institute. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for fifth to seventh respondents in writ petition no.1883/2018, would vehemently argue and contend that the notification though was issued by the super speciality hospital, the appointment orders were issued by the third respondent – Institute as a super speciality hospital was always a part of the Institute. Every other service condition after the appointment of the fifth to seventh respondents are also determined by the Institute and not by the super specialist hospital. There is no order of the government that declares super speciality hospital to be a separate entity or autonomous institution for the seniority of fifth to seventh respondents to be assessed separately and would seek to justify the impugned seniority list in both the cases. 9. Learned counsel representing the Institute in both the cases would submit that super speciality hospital was and is a part of the third respondent – Institute and seniority insofar as Assistant Professors and Associate Professors appointed after the establishment of the super speciality hospital was for the first time notified in the year 2017, which is impugned herein. Learned counsel would further submit that he has stated on oath that all the faculty of the Institute be it working in the super speciality hospital or the Institute, come under one umbrella and they have never been treated separately by the Institute. 10. I have given my anxious consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 11. Certain undisputed facts are that, on the correspondence of the Government of India, on 17.04.2006, the State Government approved a proposal for upgradation of the Institute under Pradhana Mantri Swasthya Suraksha Yojana Scheme to constitute a Monitoring Committee for establishment of super speciality hospital within the Institute. This is in furtherance of the direction of Government of India and approval by the State Government, the construction and establishment took place in terms of the Scheme and a super speciality hospital was established. This is in furtherance of the direction of Government of India and approval by the State Government, the construction and establishment took place in terms of the Scheme and a super speciality hospital was established. It is in this light, the Special Officer issued an order dated 28.05.2011, creating certain posts in the super speciality hospital -six posts of Assistant Professor and three posts of Associate Professor. 12. In furtherance of creation of these posts, a notification was issued by the Special Officer calling for applications from eligible candidates to be appointed for the said posts in the super speciality hospital through walk in interview. The fifth to seventh respondents in writ petition No.1883/2018 and fifth and sixth respondents in writ petition No.2014/2018, participated in the said process of selection and were appointed on 28.08.2012. 13. It is to be noticed that though the super speciality hospital which was then headed by a Special Officer issued a notification calling for applications, the appointment orders were not issued by him. The appointment orders dated 28.08.2012 and 27.02.2013, were issued in favour of the aforesaid respondents by the Institute i.e., Dean cum Director of the Institute. On confirmation of the probation, the grant and all other incidental service benefits were ordered by the third respondent – Institute and not by the Special Officer. This would form enough material to conclude that the petitioners were never ostracized. Nor can be held that the employees of the super speciality hospital were treated separately and neither the super speciality hospital to be a separate entity. There is no document produced by the petitioners to show that the super speciality hospital was created separately to be treated as another autonomous Institute akin to that of the third respondent – Institute. Therefore, the Teachers, Assistant Professors and the Associate Professors who were appointed in the super speciality hospital cannot but be considered to be a part of the Institute. 14. Long after all the appointment of the fifth to seventh respondents in writ petition No.1883/2018 and fifth and sixth respondents in writ petition No.2014/2018, which was on 28.08.2012 and 27.02.2013, the petitioners were appointed on 21.02.2015, as Assistant Professors and Associate Professors. The Institute for the first time notified a provisional seniority list on 20.01.2016, in which the names of the aforesaid respondents were left out. The Institute for the first time notified a provisional seniority list on 20.01.2016, in which the names of the aforesaid respondents were left out. On such anomaly in the seniority list, the aforesaid respondents filed their objections contending that they have always been a part of the Institute and they could not have been taken out of the seniority list notified by the Institute. Owing to the anomaly that is crept in the provisional seniority list, the same was rectified by the Institute and later on, notified a final seniority list of 2017, by placing the names of the aforesaid respondents above the names of the petitioners. 15. The ranking appointment in the final seniority list is on the well settled principle of determination of the seniority i.e., date of entry into the service. The petitioners have entered into service in the cadre of Assistant Professors on 21.02.2015 and 04.09.2015, by then, fifth to seventh respondents in writ petition No.1883/2018, had completed 3 years of service in the cadre of Assistant Professors and so also in the cadre of Associate Professors in the connected case. Therefore, on the principle of sheer length of service, the seniority list impugned in the writ petitions cannot be found fault with as it recognizes the said well settled principle of date of entry into service. 16. The only issue was with regard to a separate seniority list being maintained by the super speciality hospital. The learned counsel for the third respondent -Institute would submit that there is no separate seniority list maintained at the super speciality hospital of the doctors appointed. 17. Therefore, the writ petitions challenging the seniority of the fifth to seventh respondents as in the cadre of Assistant Professors and the seniority of the fifth and sixth respondents as in the cadre of the Associate Professors in the connected writ petition lack merit and are dismissed.