(1) LEAVE granted.

(2) WE have heard the learned counsel on both sides. The undisputed facts are that the appellant as a general candidate and the third respondent, Dr Nitya Anand of backward class quota were selected for appointment as lecturer in the Haryana Medical Education Service as per H.M.E.S. Rules, 1965 (for short, the Rules). The public service commission recommended the names of the appellant and Dr Nitya Anand along with three other candidates for appointment as lecturers. It would appear that Dr Diwakar Jain and Dr Sidharth Dass had not joined the service. Though Dr 0m Prakash Kaira initially had joined the service, he too left the service. Consequently the, appellant, as general candidate and Dr Nitya Anand remained in service.

(3) THE question is whether the appellant is senior to Nitya Anand. The contention of the appellant is that since the order of merit given by the Selection Committee and the letter of appointment do indicate that the appellant is high up in the order of merit to Dr Nitya Anand, he is senior to the latter. While maintaining inter se seniority by wrong interpretation Dr Nitya Anand has been made senior to the appellant whic