Hon’ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J.—The present Review Application has been filed by the petitioners for review of the order dated 30.9.2005 passed by the Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shishir Kumar, JJ.

2. We have heard Sri T.P. Singh, learned Senior Advocate alongwith Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava and Sri Swarn Kumar Srivastava, learned counsels for the petitioners, Sri Yogendra Kumar Yadav, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Sri Vikash Budhwar, appearing for respondent Nos. 4, 5.

3. We have perused the record of the Review Application alongwith accompanying affidavit. It transpires that the present writ petition has been filed for issue of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 22.8.1998 cancelling and changing the petitioners date of appointment as also the amended seniority list dated 22.6.1998 cancelling the final seniority and amending the same.

4. The Hon’ble Court after considering the matter at length and after considering each and every aspects of the matter has dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 29.9.2005. The relevant portion is quoted below :

“Undoubtedly the seniority once settled cannot be disturbed after a lapse of several years. In the instant case, the seniority had always been under challenge either before this Court or Tribunal. In none of the cases, all the necessary parties had been impleaded. While deciding the issue of seniority, it is not open for the Court or Tribunal to grant a relief against a person who is not a party and whose seniority is under challenge. A Full Bench of this Court in Farhat Hussain Azad v. State of U.P. and others, (2005) 1 UPLBEC 474, which was delivered by one of us (Dr. Justice B. S. Chauhan), held that ad hoc appointee, if regularised, cannot claim the seniority from the date of initial appointment on ad hoc basis unless it has been made following the procedure prescribed by law, placing reliance upon large number of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court including the judgment in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers Association v. State of Maharastra, AIR 1990 SC 1907, Shri T.P. Singh may be right to a certain extent that persons regularised with effect from 3.12.1985 could not claim seniority prior to that date but examining this issue would amount to a futile exercise, as we have already held that petitioners cannot claim seniority over and above the said respondents who had been appointed in substantive capacity by way of regularisation prior to them and if no relief can be granted to them, examining the said issue would be a futile exercise. (Vide Dr. Rai S. Bahadur v. Governing Body of the Nalanda College Bihar Sharif and others, AIR 1962 SC 1210; Kumari Chitra Ghosh v. Union of India and others, AIR 1970 SC 35; Dr. N.C. Singhal v. Union of India and others, 1980 SC 1255 and Khalid Hussain v. Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu Health Department and others, AIR 1987 SC 2074).

In view of the above, we do not find any force in the petition. It is accordingly dismissed.”

5. It is also apparent that subsequently writ petition No. 11134 of 2006-(Arun Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. and others) had also been filed, challenging and disputing the seniority of Executive Engineers belonging to Minor Irrigation Department and also challenging the seniority list dated 30.8.2005. The Division Bench while considering each and every aspect of the matter specially the judgment dated 29.9.2005 passed in present writ petition, has finally dismissed the writ petition on 26.5.2011. The relevant portion of the order dated 26.5.2011 are quoted below :

“After referring to Madan Pal Singh’s case and the same final seniority list dated 30th August, 2005, which is under challenge in this writ petition the Division Bench passed a question as follows :

‘The controversy involved herein is as to whether the pr