Hon’ble Vivek Chaudhary, J.—These three writ petitions relate to the same seniority dispute and, hence, all are being considered and decided together.

2. On 2.12.2000, U.P. Public Service Commission (The Commission) issued an Advertisement No. A-3/E-1/2000 for making selection on 954 vacant posts of Junior Engineer (Civil) in the Irrigation Department. Rule 8 of the U.P. Irrigation Department Civil Engineers (Subordinate) Service Rules, 1992 (Rules of 1992) required the essential qualification to be Diploma in Civil Engineering. The said advertisement and selection was challenged by degree holders, who had also applied for the said vacancies, by way of Writ Petition No. 1012 (S/S) of 2001; Anoop Ratan Awasthi v. Public Service Commission, Allahabad and Writ Petition No. 7062 (S/S) of 2001; Pramod Kumar Gupta and others v. Public Service Commission, Allahabad. By an interim order dated 18.12.2001, the High Court stayed the entire examination schedule. The interim order dated 18.12.2001 was challenged by the Public Service Commission by Special Appeal No. 485 of 2001. In the said special appeal, by an interim order dated 19.12.2001, the diploma holders as well as the degree holders were permitted to appear in the examination scheduled to be held on 22.12.2001. The Court further permitted the Commission to declare the result of the candidates possessing diploma in civil engineering. It further provided that the result of the candidates possessing the degree in civil engineering shall not be declared till further orders of the Court. In compliance of the interim order of the Court, the examination was conducted. The result of examination, including of those who possessed diploma in civil engineering, was not declared. It appears that the diploma holders also did not take any steps for compliance of the said order.

3. During pendency of the aforesaid litigation, arising out of the advertisement of 2000, the Commission issued another Advertisement No. A-3/E-1/2002 for making selection against 361 posts of Junior Engineer (Civil) from amongst candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. This selection was a special selection for the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe category candidates. The written examination of the said advertisement of 2002 was held and its result was declared in the year 2003, the final result after interview was declared on 8.12.2004. The recommendation in favour of selected candidates were made available to the department and the candidates were appointed in the year 2005 (From March, 2005 onwards).

4. Thereafter by judgment dated 5.7.2005 the Writ Petition No. 1012 (S/S) of 2001 and Writ Petition No. 7062 (S/S) of 2001, filed by the degree holders (with regard to advertisement of 2000), were dismissed. The degree holders were held ineligible under the Service Rules of 1992. After dismissal of the writ petitions, the result of written examination was declared. The interviews were held between the 5.11.2005 to 12.1.2006, final result was declared on 25.4.2006 and petitioners were recommended for appointment alongwith other qualified successful persons (from June, 2006 onwards). Thus, petitioners coming through earlier advertisement of 2000, were appointed in the year 2006, later in time, while respondents coming through advertisement of 2002, which was later in time, were appointed in the year 2005, before the petitioners.

5. After the appointments, a tentative seniority list was issued on 20.4.2006 which included the names of the respondents and other similarly situated persons. Again on 5.12.2008, another tentative seniority list was issued which included the names of the petitioners, and of the respondents. Petitioners, though they were placed below respondents, did not file any objections against the said tentative seniority list. Again on 9.9.2010, another tentative seniority l