lN THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKEM OF}DEF= SHEET writ Petition inod St.ate Of .S.Ebb.aE Versus S`ikkim & others Order with Signature 05.3.0 £.L ....... No. 03. of Zoo,8 ............ Petitioner / Appellant Pespondent Off ice Note as to action (if any) taken on Order Present: Dr. Doma T. Bhutia and Ms. Rupa Dhakal, Advocates for the Petitioner. Mr. #J.B., Pradhan and Mr. Karlna Thinlay, Government Advocates for the State-Respondents. This is a writ petition and today is the day for admission. The writ petitioner submits that in the provisional list of Assistant Engineers which was published on 17.07.2006, the writ petitioner was shown at S1. No. 9 but when the final list was published on 07.09.2007 he had gone down to Sl. No. 24. . This is objected by the wit petitioner. There is nothing inherently wrong in the final list of seniority being different from the provisional list. It is weu lmown that alter bubncation of the provisional list objections are invited and further consideration is made and it is more likely that the fmal list will be different from the first provisional list. I. Serial PDate Order with Signature Office Note as to No. of rot action (if any) Order I order taken on Order +I On behalf of the State Government it is ; explained that the date of promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer, for the writ petitioner is 20.05.2002 but all the others who have been placed just above Sl. No. 24 in the fmal list have been promoted earlier i.e. on 22.08.2001.Itisquiteclearthatifthedate of promotion is earner then the seniority in the promotee cadre will go to that person who has been promoted earlier. The writ petitioner makes a tall claim that all the promotions granted. to the private respondents on 22.08.200f are illegal because the nouns were not followed. It is too late in the day to go back to the year 2001 and try to upset the service career of so many private respondents now.Thewritpetitionhasnomerit.Itis not admitted; it is dismissed. ( A.N. Ray, C„)(A..Subba,J)