JUDGMENT : Bipin Chander Negi, J. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following substantive reliefs:- i. That the appropriate writ, order or direction may very kindly be issued and the decision (Annexure P10) dated 01.09.2021 may very kindly be quashed and set aside with further direction to respondent No.1 to restore the seniority position of the petitioners as was finalized vide seniority list (Annexure P3) as it stood on 31.07.2017, in the interest of law and justice. ii. That appropriate writ, order or direction may very kindly be issued directing the respondents to assign the seniority to the petitioners by following the roster strictly in consonance to the decision as reflected in their appointment letters, in the interest of law and justice. 2. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings. 3. Admittedly the petitioners were appointed as Clerks in the District Judiciary of Himachal Pradesh. Petitioner No.1 joined as a Clerk in the District Judiciary on 26.06.2007. Petitioner No.2 joined as a Clerk in the District Judiciary on 06.09.2004. Petitioner No.3 joined as a Clerk in the District Judiciary on 23.10.2007. 4. As per the Himachal Pradesh High Court Officers and Members of Staff (Recruitment, Promotion, Condition of Service) Conduct and Appeal Rules, 2015, 90% posts of the Senior Assistants in the High Court of Himachal Pradesh are to be filled up by way of promotion from amongst Clerks serving in High Court, which includes Junior Assistants, Proof Readers/Junior Office Assistants(IT Regular). 5. The balance 10% posts of Senior Assistants in the High Court are to be filled by way of a Limited Competitive Examination from amongst Clerks, which includes Junior Assistants and equivalent posts including Junior Office Assistant(IT Regular) of the Subordinate Courts in Himachal Pradesh. 6. In order to be eligible to apply under the aforesaid 10% quota, a person is required to have a Graduation Degree and apart from the same, is required to have 8 years of service as a Clerk. 7. Posts of Senior Assistants, to be filled in from the 10% quota (Limited Competitive Examination), were advertised on 25/26.08.2015 (Annexure R1/A). In the said process petitioners No.1 and 2 had participated. The process of recruitment was concluded on 02.03.2016. Vide office order dated 02/03.03.2016 (Annexure P1), petitioners No.1 and 2 were offered appointment of Senior Assistant in the High Court under the 10% Quota (Limited Competitive Examination). In the said process petitioners No.1 and 2 had participated. The process of recruitment was concluded on 02.03.2016. Vide office order dated 02/03.03.2016 (Annexure P1), petitioners No.1 and 2 were offered appointment of Senior Assistant in the High Court under the 10% Quota (Limited Competitive Examination). 8. Insofar as, petitioner No.3 is concerned, the process of selection to the 10% quota of Senior Assistant in the High Court through Limited Competitive Examination commenced on 27.09.2016 (Annexure R1/B). The same was concluded on 15.05.2017. Vide office order dated 15.05.2017 (Annexure P2), petitioner No.3 was offered appointment to the post of Senior Assistant in the High Court. 9. A final seniority list of the officers/officials of the High Court on 31.07.2017 was circulated, which is appended along with the present petition as Annexure P3. In the said seniority list, the petitioners were shown to be senior to the private respondents. 10. The private respondents i.e. respondents No.2, 3, 4 & 5 were appointed on 12.08.2015, 17.09.2015 and 01.01.2017 as Senior Assistants, respectively. Feeling aggrieved by the seniority assigned to them in the final seniority list dated 31.07.2017 (Annexure P-3), representations were preferred by the private respondents, the same are appended along with present petition as Annexures P-4 to P-7. The same were made in the Month of June 2021. The aforesaid representations so made were forwarded to the petitioners vide letter dated 13.08.2021, which is appended along with the present petition as Annexure P-8. In pursuance thereto, a detailed reply was filed on behalf of the petitioners to the representations so made. Reply filed by petitioners is appended with petition as per Annexure P-9. 11. The Grievance Committee for the Staff of the High Court and Trial Court held a meeting on 01.09.2021. At the said meeting, the representations so filed by the private respondents and the reply(s) thereof filed by the present petitioners along with the entire record were considered. The representations made by private respondents were allowed. The Grievance Committee was of the view that the seniority list dated 31.07.2017 i.e. Annexure P-3, had been wrongly prepared. According to the Grievance Committee, seniority was to be assigned from the date an individual was born in the cadre and not in terms of the roster point to which an individual had been appointed. 12. The Grievance Committee was of the view that the seniority list dated 31.07.2017 i.e. Annexure P-3, had been wrongly prepared. According to the Grievance Committee, seniority was to be assigned from the date an individual was born in the cadre and not in terms of the roster point to which an individual had been appointed. 12. Feeling aggrieved by the decision of the Grievance Committee dated 01.09.2021 (Annexure P10), the petitioners have filed the present writ petition. The grievance of the petitioners is: i. A perusal of the appointment orders dated02.03.2016 and 15.05.2017 i.e. Annexures P1 and P2, respectively, according to the petitioners categorically provide that seniority of the officials so appointed would be determined on the basis of roster maintained. ii. Other than the aforesaid, the seniority list, in the case at hand, according to the petitioners Annexure P3 had attained finality and therefore, the same could not have been challenged after about four years i.e.June, 2021. iii. On account of delay, according to the petitioners, right to assail Annexure P3 i.e. final seniority list dated 31.07.2017 stands lost. iv. Further as per the petitioners, the final seniority list dated 31.07.2017 i.e. Annexure P3 was never shown to the Grievance Committee, which passed the impugned order (Annexure P10). Hence, according to them, there is a material suppression of essential facts on account of which Grievance Committee has come to a wrong conclusion. v. Last but not the least, it is contended that seniority in the case at hand needs to be protected in terms of judgment of Hon’ble the Apex Court passed in Civil Appeal No.8833-8835 of 2019, titled K. Meghachandra Singh & Ors. vs. Ningam Siro & Others reported in (2020) (5) SSC 689 specifically para 40 thereof. Reliance has also placed on judgment in Union of India vs. N.R. Parmar, (2012) 13 SCC 340 and judgment dated 21.04.2016 passed in CWP No. 3619 of 2012 titled Moor Chand and others versus High Court of H.P. 13. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents have urged that the appointment letters i.e. Annexures P1 and P2, insofar as they state i.e. seniority of the petitioners, shall be determined in accordance with the roster maintained is contrary to the rules applicable for determination of seniority of Senior Assistants. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents have urged that the appointment letters i.e. Annexures P1 and P2, insofar as they state i.e. seniority of the petitioners, shall be determined in accordance with the roster maintained is contrary to the rules applicable for determination of seniority of Senior Assistants. According to the respondents, even in the advertisements issued initiating recruitment, whereby the petitioners were appointed, no such clause was contained therein that seniority of the petitioners would be determined in terms of the roster maintained. 14. Other than the aforesaid, the respondents submit that before taking impugned decision i.e. Annexure P10, the entire record had been placed before the Grievance Committee, specifically seniority list dated 31.07.2017 i.e. Annexure P3 had been brought to the notice of the Grievance Committee, in order to demonstrate the same records have been produced and shown to the Court. 15. Learned counsel for the private respondents submits that challenge to the seniority list dated 31.07.2017 (Annexure P3) in June, 2021 in terms of the representations i.e. Annexures P4 to P7 do not suffer from any delay and latches. Since, according to them, no third party rights have been created in the interregnum. In this respect, they have placed reliance on judgment in Rajinder Kumar vs. Hon’ble High Court of H.P. and others reported as 2020 (1) SLC 508, relevant paras 79 and 80 thereof. 16. Other than the aforesaid, in order to demonstrate as to when a right to challenge a seniority list arises, learned counsel for the private respondents has placed reliance on judgment in Kuldeep Chand versus Union of India and others reported as 1995 (5) SCC 680 , relevant paras 4 and 5 thereof. 17. Last but not the least, the respondents have submitted that the judgment of N.R. Parmar and K. Meghachandra Singh, on which reliance is being placed by the petitioners has no applicability to the facts of the case at hand as according to the respondents, seniorities in the case at hand were assigned to the petitioners not from the date on which the posts 2 were advertised but on the basis of Roster point. According to the counsel appearing on behalf of the High Court, insofar as, the recruitment process, in the case at hand, was concerned, whereby the petitioners were appointed as Senior Assistants in the High Court, recruitment was completed within reasonable time i.e. 6 to 7 months of the issuance of the advertisement. 18. Insofar as, the issue of seniority inter se the petitioners is concerned, at the very outset it would be appropriate to refer to the appointment order of the petitioners i.e. Annexures P1 and P2 dated 02.03.2016 and 15.05.2017, respectively. The aforesaid two appointment orders contained the following clause:- The seniority of the abovementioned officials shall be determined in accordance with the roster maintained for the purpose in the Registry. In this respect it would be appropriate to refer to the advertisements whereby the recruitment process, in the case at hand, was initiated. The relevant advertisements are appended along with the reply filed on behalf of respondent No.1 i.e. the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. The same are appended Annexures R1/A and R1/B dated 25/26.08.2015 and 27.09.2016, respectively. 19. From a perusal of the aforesaid two advertisements, it is evident that on the issue of seniority of candidates who were to be selected post conclusion of the selection process initiated in pursuance thereof, the said advertisements are conspicuous by their silence with respect to the issue of seniority. Other than the aforesaid, in the case at hand, seniority of a selected candidate was/is to be determined in accordance with the High Court of Himachal Pradesh (Recruitment, Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 2003. The relevant provision in vogue at relevant time pertaining to seniority is contained in Rule 9(A) and B(iii) of the aforesaid rules. The same is as under:- “(A) The Seniority of a member of the staff or a member of the Establishment, other than the officers on deputation, shall be determined by the date of his first appointment in service cadre, class or category in which he is appointed. The same is as under:- “(A) The Seniority of a member of the staff or a member of the Establishment, other than the officers on deputation, shall be determined by the date of his first appointment in service cadre, class or category in which he is appointed. The words “date of first appointment” as occurring in this rule means the date of first regular or substantive appointment, meaning thereby the date of first appointment on probation or otherwise against a clear vacancy, confirmation being subject to good work and conduct and/or passing of any examination or test as may be prescribed.” “(B)(iii) In any class or category of posts which provides for appointment both by promotion as well as direct recruitment, the promotes en bloc shall rank senior to direct recruits en block and inter-seniority of appointees in both groups would be subject to (i) or (ii) above, as the case may be.” 20. From the aforesaid rules, it is evident that seniority is to be determined from the date of first appointment. Even from a perusal of the impugned Minutes of the Meeting of the Grievance Committee for the Staff of High Court and Trial Courts held on 01.09.2021 i.e. Annexure P10, it is evident that if in case seniority is to be determined on the basis of roster then in that event petitioners No.1 and 2 though appointed on 02.03.2016 would rank higher than the private respondents No.2 and 3, who were appointed on 12.08.2015. Hence, petitioners No.1 and 2, though not even born in the cadre, would be given seniority from a day anterior to the date, on which they are born in the cadre. Hence, on account of the aforesaid, the argument raised by the petitioners that their seniority is to be determined in accordance with the roster maintained is rejected. 21. Respondent No.1 has produced the entire record, which was placed before the Grievance Committee, on the basis of which the Grievance Committee had passed the impugned order Annexure P10. From a perusal of the record produced, it is evident that along with representations filed by the private respondents, final seniority list dated 31.07.2017 i.e. Annexure P3 was appended. 21. Respondent No.1 has produced the entire record, which was placed before the Grievance Committee, on the basis of which the Grievance Committee had passed the impugned order Annexure P10. From a perusal of the record produced, it is evident that along with representations filed by the private respondents, final seniority list dated 31.07.2017 i.e. Annexure P3 was appended. For the aforesaid reason, there is no substance in the argument raised by the petitioners that there was a material suppression of the facts before the Grievance Committee, on account of which the Committee had arrived at a wrong conclusion. 22. The argument raised on behalf of the petitioners, that the seniority list i.e. Annexure P3 was a final seniority list dated 31.07.2017, and the same was assailed by the private respondents in June 2021, and since the challenge to the same was belated and the same had attained finality, therefore, challenge to the same deserves to be rejected on account of delay and latches; is not sustainable for the following reasons. 23. In this respect it would be appropriate to refer to judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.74 of 2017, titled Rajinder Kumar Vs. Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh & Ors, reported in 2020(1) SCC 508 . The relevant paras thereof would be paras 79 and 80 and the same are being reproduced herein below:- “79. Even if wrong placement in succeeding Seniority/Gradation Lists is not considered to be a continuing wrong, then also at the time of making representation by respondent No.3, there was no change in status and there was patent illegality in Gradation/ Seniority List, representation after five years, but prior to accrual/crystallisation of third party right, more particularly in favour of petitioner and respondent No.4, as they had not been promoted by that time on account of their placement and seniority. Therefore, representation of respondent No.3 has rightly been considered and accepted by the Committee as well as Full Court of the High Court. Circumstance of the date on which representation has been made is to be considered for determining the validity and merit of the claim and not the circumstance subsequent thereto. In fact, after receiving representation of respondent No.3, appointments/ promotions should have been made subject to the decision of representation as the said representation had been filed prior to any promotion.” “80. In fact, after receiving representation of respondent No.3, appointments/ promotions should have been made subject to the decision of representation as the said representation had been filed prior to any promotion.” “80. Patent illegality or error apparent on the face of record, in gross violation of statutory Rules, must be corrected at any stage, for avoiding perpetuation of illegality but definitely before the creation or crystallisation of settled third party rights. Disturbance thereof may again result into grave injustice to those who have been conferred a status without any fault on their part but for absence of due care and caution taken by the objector well in time” 24. Other than the aforesaid, it would also be relevant to refer to judgment titled as Kuldip Chand vs Union Of India And Others reported as 1995 (5) SCC 680 , relevant paras thereof are paras 4 and 5 and the same are being reproduced herein below:- “4. It is next contended by Mr. M.M. Kashyap, learned counsel for the appellant, that Ashok Kumar disputed the correctness of the seniority list made on 23.12.1982 in his representations dated 10.01.1983 and 01.08.1983 which were duly considered and rejected. He allowed it to become final as he did not challenge the same till post of accountant became vacant. When it was rejected, he filed the writ petition in the High Court. There is a considerable delay in claiming his seniority over the appellant. It is true that the seniority list was prepared as early as on 23.12.1982 but no vacancy had arisen thereafter and, therefore, the mere rejection of the claim for seniority does not disentitle him to claim his seniority over the appellant for consideration by the respondent-Union.” “5. When the aforesaid facts are taken into consideration, it would be obvious that the preparation of seniority list per se was illegal. Therefore, the mere fact that he did not challenge the seniority list, which was illegally prepared, till he was aggrieved for non-consideration of the claim to the post of accountant, his legitimate right to be considered cannot be denied. Under these circumstances, the delay is of no consequence for considering the claims of Ashok Kumar for the post of accountant.” 25. Under these circumstances, the delay is of no consequence for considering the claims of Ashok Kumar for the post of accountant.” 25. In the case at hand, insofar as, the final seniority list dated 31.07.2017 i.e. Annexure P3 is concerned, there exists a patent illegality/error apparent on the face of the same, as the same is in gross violation of the statutory rules. The rule of seniority already stands reproduced supra, which makes it evident that seniority has to be determined on the basis of initial date of appointment and not on the basis of roster. Other than the aforesaid, in the case at hand, there has been no crystallization of 3 rd party rights or even in favour of the petitioners in the interregnum. The status of parties was the same as was in 2017. 26. In view of the aforesaid, contentions on behalf of the petitioners w.r.t. delay and latches in challenging final seniority list i.e. Annexure P3 dated 31.07.2017 is concerned, must fail. Insofar as, the selection of petitioners No.1 and 2 is concerned, the same was initiated vide Advertisement dated 25/26.08.2015 i.e. Annexure R1/A. Appointment orders of petitioners No.1 and 2 were issued vide office order dated 02.03.2016 i.e. Annexure P1. A perusal of the final seniority list i.e. Annexure P3, makes it evident that the date of entry in service present employment assigned to petitioners No.1 and 2 are 26.06.2007/15.03.2016 and 06.09.2004/10.03.2016, respectively. 27. From the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, it is evident that the seniority assigned to petitioners No.1 and 2 in the impugned seniority list dated 31.07.2017 i.e. Annexure P3 are not the dates relatable to the date of start of recruitment process i.e. 25/26.08.2015 i.e. the date of advertisement (Annexure R1/A). 28. Similarly, insofar as petitioner No.3 is concerned, the recruitment process had been initiated vide advertisement dated 27.09.2016, as is evident from the advertisement issued in this respect, which is appended along with the reply as Annexure R1/B. The date of issuance of appointment letter to the petitioner No.3 is 15.05.2017, as is evident from Annexure P2. Insofar as, the seniority of petitioner No.3 is concerned, the date mentioned in the impugned Annexure P3 with respect to entry in service/present employment is 23.10.2007/20.05.2017. Insofar as, the seniority of petitioner No.3 is concerned, the date mentioned in the impugned Annexure P3 with respect to entry in service/present employment is 23.10.2007/20.05.2017. Here again the dates so assigned to petitioner No.3 are not relatable, the date of commencement of recruitment in the case at hand i.e. 27.09.2016, date of issuance of advertisement Annexure R1/B. 29. In the case of N.R. Parmar the date assigned to the incumbents was relatable to the date of initiation of the recruitment process i.e. date of advertisement. Since that is not the case in hand, therefore neither N.R. Parmar nor law laid down in K. Meghachandra Singh has any applicability to the case of the petitioners in the case at hand. 30. Seniority to petitioners in Annexure P-3 has been assigned on the basis of Roster Point. Petitioners are direct recruits appointed against 10% quota provided for direct entry in High Court services by way of Limited Competitive Examinations. Private respondents are promotees. 31. As noticed supra, relevant Rules 9 A and B (iii) of applicable R & P Rules 2003 provide provisions for determination of seniority between promotees and direct recruitment. Therein in clear terms it is provided that promotees en-bloc shall rank senior to the direct recruits en- bloc. The condition incorporated in offer of appointment/appointment letter Annexure P-1 and Annexure P-2 providing that seniority of petitioners shall be determined in accordance with Roster maintained for the purpose in the Registry is contrary to the relevant R & P Rules, wherein there is no such provision in R&P Rules for assigning seniority on the basis of Roster point. 32. As held by the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and others vs. Yogendra Shrivastava, (2010) 12 SCC 538 , anything provided in the appointment letter which is not in consonance with the Rules, can be corrected or set right by the Tribunals/Courts. In this regard, following paragraphs of this judgment shall be relevant. "9.In this background, on the contentions raised by the parties, the following three questions arise for our consideration: (i) Whether the rates of NPA specified in the letters of appointment and the orders of the department, can prevail over the provisions relating to NPA in the Rules ? …. ….. …. Re: Question (i) 10. The appellants contend that the Rules do not contain any specific provision for payment of non- practising allowance. …. ….. …. Re: Question (i) 10. The appellants contend that the Rules do not contain any specific provision for payment of non- practising allowance. They point out that schedule I to the Rules merely refers to "plus NPA @ 25% of the pay" in the column relating to the pay scale, without defining the term "pay". It is submitted that when the term "pay" is not defined, it can refer to the minimum or initial pay in the pay-scale, or to each stage in the pay-scale commencing from the initial pay and ending with the maximum pay in the pay-scale. 11. It is contended that the State Government had proceeded on the basis that "25% of the pay" referred to the "25% of initial pay" and had fixed the NPA keeping the said figure in view, by means of executive orders. It is submitted that fixing of a lump sum as NPA, approximately equal to 25% of the initial pay in the applicable pay-scale, by executive orders issued by the Government from time to time, was therefore in consonance with the Rules. Alternatively. it was contended that incidental matters relating to number of posts, pay scales and NPA referred to the Schedule to the Rules, were subject to periodical revision/changes and it was common practice to make such revisions/changes, by executive orders instead of adopting the process of amending the rules every time, and that such executive orders were binding on the employees and were never challenged. 12. The Rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution clearly provided that the concerned employees (medical officers) were entitled to NPA @ 25% of pay, in addition to the pay in the pay scale. In fact, it formed part of the pay scale. Consequently, whatever was the basic pay, 25% thereof had to be paid as NPA. Whenever the benefit of increments in the pay- scale, or revision in pay scale were extended, NPA also got correspondingly increased so that NPA always remained as one fourth of the basic pay. This is the interpretation that has been put forth by the Tribunal and upheld by the High Court and we find no reason to interfere with the same. 13. The contention that the executive orders issued from time to time or the appointment letters issued in accordance with such executive orders will prevail over the Rules cannot be accepted. This is the interpretation that has been put forth by the Tribunal and upheld by the High Court and we find no reason to interfere with the same. 13. The contention that the executive orders issued from time to time or the appointment letters issued in accordance with such executive orders will prevail over the Rules cannot be accepted. When there is conflict between the Statutory Rules and executive orders, the statutory Rules will prevail (see: K. Dayananda Lal vs. State of Kerala, (1996) 9 SCC 728 , T.N. Housing Board v. N. Balasubramaniun, (2004) 6 SCC 85 , State of Karanataka v. KGSD Canteen Employees' Welfare Assn., (2006) 1 SCC 567 , and Punjab National Bank v. Astamija Dash, (2008) 14 SCC 370 . Executive orders cannot be made or given effect in violation of what is mandated by the Rules. If appointment letters provides for payment of NPA which is not in consonance with Rules, they can be corrected or set right by Tribunals/courts." 33. In view of above settled law, term/condition incorporated in appointment letter, providing seniority on the basis of Roster, is not sustainable and the same is corrected by declaring the same nonest by setting aside the same and, thus, plea, based upon such condition, raised by the petitioners is not maintainable. 34. In CWP No.3619 of 2012 titled Moor Chand and others vs. High Court of H.P. and others, decided by Division Bench of this High Court on 21.04.2016, issue was not related to inter se seniority between direct recruitees and promotees, but issue raised in the said petition was that 10% quota providing appointment to the post of Senior Assistant/Record Keeper/Reader to the Registrar General/Court Officer/Auditor to the Clerks including Junior Assistants serving in the Subordinate Courts on the basis of limited Competitive Examination was not legal and sustainable. For this plea, it was contended that it was reducing the chance of promotion of the Clerks/Junior Assistants already serving in the High Court despite being eligible for promotion to the next post in the establishment of the High Court. Challenge laid was to 10% quota provided to the Clerks/Junior Assistants working in the Subordinate Courts and the said plea was rejected by the Division Bench for the reasons assigned in the judgment dated 21.04.2016. Challenge laid was to 10% quota provided to the Clerks/Junior Assistants working in the Subordinate Courts and the said plea was rejected by the Division Bench for the reasons assigned in the judgment dated 21.04.2016. An issue of inter se seniority between 90% promotees, promoted amongst the High Court employees and 10% selectees entering into the High Court on the basis of limited Competitive Examination from amongst the Clerks and Junior Assistants of Subordinate Courts was not in consideration in Moor Chand’s case, therefore, judgment in Moor Chand's case has not decided this issue and thus, this judgment and observations made therein on different issue(s), are not relevant for the present lis. Thus, reliance placed on the said judgment for advancing the claim of the petitioners is not sustainable. 35. In view of the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, present petition stands dismissed, and the pending application(s), if any, also disposed of in the same terms.