S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.

By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding respondents No. 1 and 2 to finalise the seniority-list in the cadre of instructors (workshop) on the basis of the date of appointment and not the date of confirmation, thereby placing the petitioner appropriately. More particularly, he should be placed as senior to respondent Nos. 3 to 5.

2. The petitioner prays that the above reliefs be granted after this Court calls for the record and proceedings pertaining to the communications dated 29.9.1999 and 8.3.2001. The other prayer of the petitioner is in alternate and that is to strike down the adverse remarks for the years 1973-74, 1974-75, and 1976-77.

3. Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 are duly served. We are informed that respondent No. 4 has since expired. Petitioner and respondent Nos. 3 to 5 have retired from services. Since the issue involves fixation of Notional Seniority of the petitioner and respondent Nos. 3 and 5 being in no way affected by the same, we have proceeded to dispose off this petition. It is common ground before us that if the seniority of the petitioner cannot be linked to the date of confirmation in service, then it is not necessary to enter into any larger controversy or deal with the issue of adverse remarks.

4. The petitioner has approached this Court by pointing out that pursuant to the recommendations of the duly constituted Selection Committee he was appointed as Inspector in Pattern Making at the Goa College of Engineering vide Order dated 5th September, 1968 w.e.f. 12th August, 1968. The petitioner has contended that respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5 were appointed in the year 1969 and the petitioner being appointed earlier and that too on regular basis, he is senior to these respondents in services.

5. Our attention is invited to a tentative seniority list of Instructors (Workshop) dated 2.2.1979, wherein the petitioner was shown as senior to respondents Nos. 3 to 5. His name appears at serial No. 4. As no objections were lodged in regard to this tentative seniority list, a circular was issued on 16.2.1979 declaring that the seniority list of 2.2.1979 stands finalised.

6. The petitioner then invited our attention to an order dated 21.2.1979 wherein confirmation orders were issued in respect of certain posts, including Instructors (Workshop), a copy of the same is annexed as Exhibit "F" to the petition and it is pointed out to us that the post against which the petitioner was appointed is made permanent on 25th January, 1972 which is prior to the order at Exhibit "F" pertaining to respondents No. 3 to 5. Naturally, therefore, the petitioner's name would not figure in the same. It is, thereafter that adverse remarks were communicated. The case of the petitioner is that the representations/appeals against them are pending. However, by order dated 4.11.1981, Exhibit "K" to the petition, the petitioner was confirmed in the post of Instructor (Workshop). The said order indicates that the post to which the petitioner had been appointed was converted as a permanent post with effect from 25.1.1972. It is in such circumstances that the petitioner invited our attention to the tentative seniority list, Exhibit "N" wherein he is shown at serial No. 3 and respondents No. 3 to 5 are shown at serial Nos. 4 to 6. However, when the circular dated 6th/13th November, 1986 was issued to finalise the tentative seniority list at Exhibit "N", the name of respondent No. 3 was shown as senior to the petitioner and respondents No. 4 to 5 continued to be shown as juniors to him. The petitioner protested vide representation dated 11.12.1986 in so far as placing of respondent No. 3 as senior to him and reminders were addressed by him in the year 1987-1988, but there was no response.

7. It is then contended that by circular dated 2.1.1991, yet another tentative seniority list of Inspectors