JUDGMENT :

Heard Sri Pankaj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for appellant, learned Senior Counsel for the State-respondents. The fifth respondent had not put in appearance despite notice.

2. It is informed that the fifth respondent did not contest the writ petition.

3. The order dated 25 April 2018, passed by the learned Single Judge, in Writ-A No. 10394 of 2018 (Rajeev Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. and 4 Others), whereby the writ petition came to be dismissed, is under challenge.

4. The petitioner had approached the writ court assailing the order dated 19 February 2018, passed by the respondent No.3- Commissioner, (Gram Vikas) Government of UP, whereby, the claim of the petitioner for arrears of salary, as well as, seniority from the date of his junior came to be rejected. The learned Single Judge declined to interfere with the impugned order as it merely directed to declare the result of the written test ignoring the type test as it was mandated in the advertisement as per the Rules. The operative portion of the order reads thus :

"On a pointed query made by the Court, learned counsel for the petitioner made a statement at the bar that the petitioner had challenged the appointment of the