WA 320/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE A. K. GOEL THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. C. DAS (Goel,J.) This appeal has been preferred against the order of learned Single Judge declini ng to allow prayer in the writ petition to count service of the appellant prior to regularization for the purpose of seniority. The appellant was appointed in the BSF provisionally subject to passing Stenogra phy test within one year failing which his service was liable to be terminated. The appellant could not qualify the test within the stipulated period but passed the same after about 10 years in 7th attempt. On passing of the said test, serv ices of the appellant were regularized but he was not given increments for the s ervice rendered. Accordingly, the appellant filed writ petition claiming the ben efit of entire service for seniority and also increments. The prayer was opposed relying upon the stipulations in the terms of appointment. As regards denial of increments, learned Single Judge held that the benefit of i ncrements already given could not be recovered in view of judgment of this Court in Tarun Tamuli vs. State of Assam and others, reported in (2001) 1 GLT 87 in s omewhat similar circumstances but as regards the claim for retrospective regular ization in service and granting of seniority on that basis the same could not be allowed. Dealing with the contention that similarly situated persons who had no t qualified the Stenography test but were given retrospective regularization, it was noticed that this averment had been denied in the counter-affidavit and it was stated that the said issue was still under consideration of the Ministry of Home Affairs and if any further decision was taken, the same will apply to the a ppellant and others. We have heard Mr. M. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant , and Mr. A. K. Bora, learned Central Govt. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents. Only point which has been put forward by learned counsel for the appellant is th at retrospective regularization should have been given and alternatively, inter se seniority of the appellant and other similarly placed employees should not be disturbed. As regards retrospective regularization the view taken by learned Single Judge i s not shown in any manner to be erroneous in view of terms of the appointment of the appellant. His regularization in service has to commence after passing of t he Stenography test. There is, thus, no ground to interfere on this aspect. As regards maintaining inter se seniority between the appellant and other simila rly placed employees is concerned, the issue has been left open by the learned S ingle Judge. No employee who may have affected seniority of the appellant has be en impleaded as a party. Plea of discrimination has been denied by the responden ts. In these circumstances, there is no error in the view taken by the learned S ingle Judge calling for interference. The appeal is, thus, dismissed.