WP(C) 4696/2008 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA. JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the seniority posi tion assigned to her in the Annexurer-10 Gradation List of Scientific Personnel in the Directorate of Forensic Science, Government of Assam. The petitioner bel ongs to the cadre of Junior Scientific Officer and in the said Gradation List, h er position is at Sl. No.7 as against the positions assigned to the private resp ondents at Sl. No.5 and 6. Be it stated here that presently, the petitioner does not have any grievance against the Respondent No.4. 2. According to the petitioner, she having been appointed to the services o f the Laboratory as Senior Scientific Assistant under Regulation 3(f) of the A.P .S.C. (L&F) Regulation, 1951 by order dated 19.6.1993, which was subsequently re gularized by order dated 19.3.1996 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition), she is ent itled to count her seniority in the cadre of Senior Scientific Assistant from th e initial date of appointment in 1993. Be it stated here that by the same order of regular appointment i.e. 19.3.1996 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition), the p etitioner and the private respondents had been appointed. In the order of appoin tment, the petitioner was placed at Sl. No.3 as against placing the Respondents No.4 and 5 at Sl. No.1 and 2. 3. The whole basis of the claim of the petitioner is the case of one Dr. Pa dma Pani Mahanta, Deputy Director of Laboratory, who was given seniority even fo r the period of service under Regulation 3(f). 4. The Respondent No.5 has filed an affidavit-in-opposition, in which, she has enclosed the copy of the advertisement No.5/1994, by which, candidatures wer e invited for the post of Senior Scientific Assistant. She has also enclosed the Merit List published by the A.P.S.C. vide letter dated 20.12.1998. As per the advertisement, there was only one post of Senior Scientific Assistant (Biology Division) and in the Select List, it was the Respondent No.5, whose name alone a ppeared as the selected candidate. It is submitted by the learned counsel for t he parties that although the names of the petitioner and the Respondent No. 4 di d not figure in the Merit List, but their names were included in the Waiting Lis t. 5. After the aforesaid selection, all the three persons i.e. the petitioner and the Respondents No.4 and 5 were appointed by the aforementioned Annexure-6 order dated 19.3.1996. While the Respondent No.4 and the petitioner were appoint ed as Senior Scientific Assistant (Questioned Document Division) and (Serology D ivision) respectively, the Respondent No.5 was appointed as Senior Scientific As sistant (Biology Division), which was the post advertised. 6. As per the Service Rules namely, the Assam Forensic Science Laboratory S ervices Rules, 1985 (Rule 22), the seniority of the incumbents appointed by dire ct recruitment or by promotion, is required to be determined, according to the o rder of merit in the respective Select Lists. Admittedly, the Respondent No.5 al one was included in the Merit List, while the Respondent No.4 and the petitioner were included in the Waiting List, below the said Respondent No.5. According to Rule 22 of the said Rules of 1985, the seniority is to be determined in order o f merit, occupied by the contesting parties in the Select List, prepared by the A.P.S.C. Accordingly, there was noting wrong in assigning the higher seniority to the Respondent No.5 above the petitioner. 7. Mr. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance on the d ecision of the Apex Court reported in (2002) 4 SCC 234 (Chandra Prakash v.. Stat e Of U.P.), submits that although the petitioner was appointed on temporary basi s, but considering the fact that she continued in her services till she was regu larly appointed through A.P.S.C, she is entitled to count her initial date of ap pointment. In the said case, temporary appointments were made in consultation wi th the Public Service Commission. It was pursuant to adoption of Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointments (on positions within purview of Public Service Commission ) Rules, 1979, the particular decision was taken. The same is not the case in ha nd. The issue is no longer res integra, after the judgment in Dr. Satyabrata Dut ta Choudhury V. State of Assam reported in (1976) 1 SCC 283, in which, the Apex Court under similar circumstances held that in appointments made under Regulatio n 3(f) and later on, regularised through A.P.S.C, the incumbents thereof are ent itled to count their seniority only from the date of regularisation and in order of merit. In the said case, the Apex Court placed reliance on the State Governm ent Notification dated 5.2.1964, which is in parameteria with Rule 22 of the afo resaid Rules of 1985. By now, the law is well settled that the seniority is to b e determined on the basis of merit positions in the Select List. 8. It is altogether a different thing that the appointees under Regulation 3 (f) may earn increments and other service benefits during his/her such service , but it is altogether a different thing when the question of seniority is to be determined. The seniority can only be counted from the date of regular appointm ent and on the basis of merit positions obtained in the Select List. 9. So far as the case of Dr. Padma Pani Mahanta, on which, the petitioner h as placed reliance is concerned, it is not known to this Court as to under what circumstances, such a course of action was adopted by the authority. In any case , a wrong committed in the matter of seniority in respect of an officer cannot a llow the petitioner to contend that the similar wrong be continued and/or perpet rated in another case. 10. For all the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ peti tion and accordingly, it is dismissed.