1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO.9037/2023 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. SRI K.G. KULKARNI S/O GOVINDARAO KULKARNI AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS PRESENTLY WORKING AS ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF LEGAL METOLOGY, SOUTH CANARA MANGALORE-575008 R/O C/O ARUN NARONHE KORIMURA V CROSS MANGALORE-576104. 2. SRI GAJENDRA V EDKE S/O VISHNURAO EDKE AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS PRESENTLY WORKING AS ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF LEGAL METOLOGY, UDUPI, MANIPAL R/O CANOPY, B 1601 URWA STORES MANGALORE-576 104. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SATISH K., ADV. FOR P1 SRI PRITHVEESH M.K., ADV. FOR P2) 2 AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPT. OF FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES CONSUMER AFFAIRS & LEGAL METROLOGY (POLICE SERVICES-A) VIKASA SOUDHA DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU- 560001 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE CONTROLLER OF LEGAL METROLOGY NO.1, ALI ASKER ROAD BENGALURU-560 052. 3. SRI MANJUNATH ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF LEGAL METROLOGY SHIVAMOGGA-577201. 4. SRI ANIL KUMAR ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF LEGAL METROLOGY CIRCLE III, CUNNINGHAM ROAD BENGALURU-560052. 5. SRI MANOJ KUMAR S/O BHUJANGA RAO AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT CONTROLLER GRADE –II OFFICE OF CONTROLLER OF LEGAL METROLOGY #1, ALIASKAR ROAD BANGALORE-560052. 3 6. SMT. M MAMATHA W/O BHASKAR G AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF LEGAL METROLOGY OFFICE OF CONTROLLER OF LEGAL METROLOGY #1, ALIASKAR ROAD BANGALORE-560052. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SUNIL S RAO, ADV. FOR C/R4 SRI K.B. MURALIDHAR, ADV. FOR SRI K.R. BHAVANI SHANKAR, ADV. FOR C/R3 SRI V SHIVA REDDY, AGA FOR R1 & R2 SRI RANGANATH S JOIS, ADV. IMPLEADING APPLICANT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE, PERUSE THE SAME, ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20.01.2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU, IN APPLICATION NOS.4848 AND 4849/2021, BY ISSUING A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 30.06.2025 COMING ON THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF 4 CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) The petitioners, being aggrieved by the order dated 20.01.2023 in Application Nos.4848 & 4849 of 2021 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench (for short “Tribunal”) rejecting their applications whereunder, they had questioned ranking assigned to them as well as respondents No.3 and 4 under seniority list bearing No. PÁªÀiÁE/¹§âA¢-1/¹Dgï-177/20-21 dated 13.09.2021 to the cadre of Inspector of Legal Metrology and had also sought for a writ of prohibition against respondents No.1 and 2 not to alter the seniority of the Inspector/Assistant Controller of Legal Metrology and to treat the petitioners as seniors to respondents No.3 and 4 as per the position prevailing before issuing the impugned order. 5 2. The brief facts of the case are that: The petitioners as well as respondents No.3 and 4 were appointed as Inspectors of Legal Metrology on compassionate ground under order dated 20.09.1994 of the second respondent (Annexure-A1). In the said order of appointment, the petitioners were at Sl.No.2 and 4, whereas respondents No.3 and 4 were at Sl.No.11 and 8 respectively. The order of appointment on compassionate ground dated 20.09.1994 provided 15 days time to report to duty on receipt of the said order of appointment. The first petitioner reported to duty on 17.10.1994 whereas the second petitioner reported to duty on 01.10.1994, so also respondents No.3 and 4 reported to duty on 01.10.1994. The seniority list of the cadre of Inspectors of Legal Metrology was finalized on 26.04.2006 wherein petitioners No.1 and 2 were shown at Sl.No.14 and 16 respectively and 6 respondents No.3 and 4 were shown at Sl.No.20 and 22 respectively. Thereafter, the seniority list of the cadre of Inspector of Legal Metrology was updated on 08.06.2012 wherein the ranking of the petitioners was shown at Sl.No.14 and 16 and respondents No.3 and 4 at Sl.No.20 and 22 respectively. Yet again, the seniority list of the cadre of Inspector of Legal Metrology was updated on 01.06.2014 (Annexure-A5) and in the said seniority list also, the ranking of the petitioners was shown at Sl.No.13 and 14 whereas ranking of respondents No.3 and 4 was shown at Sl.No.21 and 19 respectively. Thereafter, the petitioners were promoted to the next higher cadre i.e., Assistant Controller of Legal Metrology vide order dated 06.04.2018(Annexure-A7). Subsequently, the provisional seniority list of the cadre of Inspector of Legal Metrology was published on 25.01.2021 (Annexure-A8) wherein the seniority of the petitioners 7 was shown at Sl.No.55 and 57 and the seniority of respondents No.3 and 4 was shown at Sl.No.61 and 63. As the ranking of the petitioners was shown above the private respondents 3 and 4, the petitioners had no occasion to file any objection insofar as inter- se seniority between the petitioners and respondents No.3 and 4. However, while finalizing the said seniority list on 13.09.2021, the petitioners were pushed down to Sl.No.57 and 62 respectively and respondents No.3 and 4 were pushed up and shown at Sl.No.55 and 56 respectively. 3. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners approached the Tribunal in the above stated applications. The Tribunal, under impugned order dated 20.01.2023 rejected the applications of the petitioners holding that in terms of Rule 7 of Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules 1996 (for short “1996 8 Rules”), the seniority is to be counted from the date of reporting to duty; in terms of Rule 7A of Karnataka Civil Services (Seniority) Rules, 1957 (for short “Seniority Rules, 1957”), the older in age being considered as senior to the younger while preparing the seniority list and also holding that under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, the respondents- authorities are conferred with power to rectify the mistakes if any, while preparing the seniority list. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners who were applicants before the Tribunal are before this Court in this writ petition. 4. Heard learned counsel Sri.K.Sathish and Sri.M.K.Prithveesh for petitioners; learned AGA for respondents No.1 and 2 and Sri.K.B.Muralidhar, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and Sri.Sunil S Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 9 5. Learned counsels appearing for the petitioners would submit that the Tribunal while considering the correctness or otherwise of ranking assigned to the petitioners as well as respondents No.3 and 4 failed to properly appreciate the legal position and has come to an erroneous conclusion. It is submitted that the petitioners as well as respondents No.3 and 4 were appointed on compassionate ground under the same order dated 20.09.1994 of the second respondent wherein, the petitioners were at Sl.No.2 and 4 and respondents No.3 and 4 were at Sl.No.11 and 8 respectively, which provided 15 days time to report to duty on receipt of the order of appointment. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the seniority list of the cadre of Inspector of Legal Metrology was finalized on 26.04.2006, 08.06.2012 and 01.06.2014. Further, they were promoted on 06.04.2018 as Assistant 10 Controller of Legal Metrology. In all the above seniority lists, the ranking of the petitioners were shown above respondents No.3 and 4 and respondents No.3 and 4 never challenged the ranking assigned to them which was below the petitioners. Respondents No.1 and 2 after more than 25 years from the date of appointment of petitioners and respondents No.3 and 4 could not have tinkered with the ranking assigned to the petitioners when respondents No.3 and 4 have never questioned the ranking of the petitioners assigned in the earlier seniority list. They could not have ventured for correction of the seniority list on the premise that respondents No.1 and 2 have committed mistake on an earlier occasion. When once the seniority list is finalized and when it had attained the finality, the authorities have no jurisdiction to tinker with such seniority list. In that regard, learned counsel for the 11 petitioners would place reliance on the decision of the co-ordinate bench in RAMASWAMY G.T AND OTHERS v/s STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS (1986 (1) Kar.L.J. page 1); a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in K.R.MUDGAL AND OTHERS v/s R.P.SINGH AND OTHERS (1986) 4 SCC 531. 7. Learned counsel would further contend that the Tribunal fell in error in placing reliance on Section 21 of General Clauses Act to come to the conclusion that whenever the Competent Authority finds a defect or mistake while preparing the seniority list, it can be rectified. Learned counsel would submit that the said provision would have no application to tinker the final seniority list or the seniority which has attained finality. If the respondents No.3 and 4 accept the seniority of petitioners who are placed above them for decades together and allowed promotion of petitioners to the next higher cadre, on the premise that there is 12 mistake in the seniority list, ranking in the seniority list cannot be tinkered after more than 25 years. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that petitioner No.1 reported to duty on 17.10.1994 within 15 days from the date of receipt of order of appointment. In that regard, learned counsel Sri.K.Sathish invites attention of this Court to the documents filed along with memo dated 23.06.2025 particularly the cover in which, the order of appointment was sent to petitioner No.1. He submits that the order of appointment was dispatched on 01.10.1994 which was received by petitioner No.1 on 08.10.1994 and he reported to duty on 17.10.1994 i.e., within 15 days from the date of receipt of order of appointment. Further, it is submitted that the second petitioner as well as respondents No.3 and 4 reported to duty on 01.10.1994 within 15 days from the date of receipt of order of appointment. Learned counsel 13 would submit that in the normal circumstances, where the appointment on compassionate ground is made, Rule 7 of 1996 Rules would govern. Whereas, when the compassionate appointment is made by a single order for more than one person, then Rule 7 of 1996 Rules would have no application and Rule 18 of Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 (for short “1977 Rules”) would apply. Learned counsel referring to Rule 18 of 1977 Rules would submit that a candidate appointed by direct recruitment shall assume charge of the post to which he is appointed within 15 days from the date of order of appointment, but not later than 15 days from the said date. Explanation to Rule 18(1) would explain that the date of order of appointment means the date of dispatch of the order of appointment by registered post to the address given by the candidate. Therefore, he submits that in terms of Rule 18 of 1977 Rules, the 14 first petitioner reported to duty within 15 days from the date of dispatch of order of appointment. The petitioner No.2 also reported to duty within 15 days i.e., 01.10.1994. Therefore, they submit that ranking assigned to the first petitioner taking note of the date of reporting to duty is wholly erroneous and opposed to the facts of the present case. 9. Lastly, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that in the provisional seniority list dated 25.01.2021 of the cadre of Inspector of Legal Metrology, the petitioners were shown above respondents No.3 and 4 and while finalizing the seniority list on 15.09.2021, the petitioners are pushed down and respondents No.3 and 4 are pushed up and shown above them. It is their specific contention that the petitioners had no opportunity to have their say as they were not aggrieved by the ranking assigned to them in the 15 provisional seniority list. In that regard, they place reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER v/s P.K.ROY AND OTHERS reported in 1967 SCC On Line SC 23. Thus, they pray for allowing the writ petition. 10. Per contra, learned AGA for respondents No.1 and 2 would submit that under the impugned seniority list, mistake committed by the authorities has been corrected by properly assigning rankings to the petitioners and respondents No.3 and 4. It is contended by the learned AGA that in the matter of inter-se seniority between petitioners and respondents No.3 and 4, Rule 7A of the Seniority Rules ought to have been followed. By following Rule 7A of Seniority Rules, earlier mistake has been set right. 11. It is submitted that petitioners and respondents No.3 and 4 are appointed on compassionate grounds 16 vide order of the second respondent dated 20.09.1994. Referring to Rule 7 of 1996 Rules, learned AGA contends that seniority of persons appointed on compassionate grounds shall be determined from the date of their reporting to duty. It is further submitted that the first petitioner reported to duty on 17.10.1994 whereas petitioner No.2 as well as respondents No.3 and 4 reported to duty on 01.10.1994. Among the second petitioner and respondents No.3 and 4, the persons who are older in age are given higher seniority. Further, learned AGA would submit that in the impugned seniority list, wrong/mistake committed by the authorities is set right and he submits that wrong cannot be allowed to perpetuate. 12. Learned counsel Sri.K.B.Muralidhar and learned counsel Sri.Sunil S Rao appearing for respondents No.3 and 4 would submit that respondents No.1 and 2 17 in the impugned seniority list have rectified the earlier wrong committed by them and correction of wrong by the authorities cannot be found fault with. Learned counsel would submit that the seniority of compassionate appointees is governed by Rule 7 of 1996 Rules. Further, learned counsel would also submit that the seniority of petitioners and respondents No.3 and 4 are to be determined in accordance with Rule 7A(1)(ii) of the Seniority Rules, 1957. As respondents No.1 and 2 failed to follow the above stated provision while preparing the seniority list, the petitioners were shown above the respondents. This mistake has been rectified in the impugned seniority list. It is further submitted that Section 21 of General Clauses Act permits rectification of mistakes. Further, it is submitted that in terms of Rule 7 of 1996 Rules, seniority of the petitioners and respondents No.3 and 4 are determined from the 18 date, they reported to duty. Petitioner No.1 reported to duty subsequent to reporting to duty by respondents No.3 and 4. Therefore, it is submitted that petitioner No.1 cannot claim seniority over respondents No.3 and 4. Although petitioner No.2 reported to duty along with respondents No.3 and 4, it is submitted that since respondents No.3 and 4 are seniors in age, they are given higher seniority in accordance with Rule 7A of Seniority Rules. Thus, they pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, the following points would arise for our consideration: (i) In the facts and circumstances of the present case, whether inter-se seniority among petitioners and respondents No.3 and 4 is to be counted from the date of reporting to duty or in terms of order of appointment dated 20.09.1994 (Annexure-A1) in accordance with Rule 18 of General Recruitment Rules? 19 (ii) Whether the impugned order passed by the Tribunal requires interference at the hands of this Court? 14. In the peculiar facts of the present case, inter-se seniority of petitioners and respondents No.3 and 4 are to be determined in terms of order of appointment dated 20.09.1994 (Annexure-A1) in accordance with Rule 18 of General Recruitment Rules. Accordingly, the impugned order under challenge requires interference. 15. In service jurisprudence it is settled position of law that settled position cannot be unsettled. Challenge to ranking or seniority or promotion shall be within a reasonable time. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P.S. SADASIVASWAMY V. STATE OF TAMIL NADU reported in (1975) 1 SCC 152 has held as under:- 20 “2. ……………………… Not only Respondent 2 but also Respondents 3 and 4 who were the appellant's juniors became Divisional Engineers in 1957, apparently on the ground that their merits deserved their promotion over the head of the appellant. He did not question it. Nor did he question the promotion of his juniors as Superintending Engineers over his head. He could have come to the Court on every one of these three occasions. A person aggrieved by an order of promoting a junior over his head should approach the Court at least within six months or at the most a year of such promotion. It is not that there is any period of limitation for the Courts to exercise their powers under Article 226 nor is it that there can never be a case where the Courts cannot interfere in a matter after the passage of a certain length of time. But it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the Courts to refuse to exercise their extraordinary powers under Article 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the Court to put forward stale claims and try to unsettle settled 21 matters. The petitioner's petition should, therefore, have been dismissed in limine. Entertaining such petitions is a waste of time of the Court. It clogs the work of the Court and impedes the work of the Court in considering legitimate grievances as also its normal work. We consider that the High Court was right in dismissing the appellant's petition as well as the appeal.” (emphasis supplied) 16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in K.R.MUDAGAL AND OTHERS V/S R.P.SINGH AND OTHERS reported in (1986) 4 SCC 531 has observed that satisfactory service conditions postulates that there should be no sense of uncertainty amongst the government servants created by writ petitions filed after several years. It is further observed that it is essential that any one who feels aggrieved by seniority assigned to him should approach the Court as early as possible, as otherwise in addition to the creation of sense of insecurity in the minds of the government servants 22 there would also be administrative complications and difficulties. 17. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the petitioners and respondents No.3 and 4 are appointed on compassionate ground by a common order of appointment dated 20.09.1994 (Annexure-A1). Thereafter, 3 seniority lists of the cadre of Inspector of Legal Metrology are finalized i.e., on 26.04.2006, 08.06.2012 and 01.06.2014. In all the 3 seniority lists, admittedly, the petitioners were shown above respondents No.3 and 4 and there was no challenge to the ranking assigned to the petitioners by respondents No.3 and 4. The rankings of the petitioners above respondents No.3 and 4 continued for nearly 27 years till the impugned seniority list was published. The petitioners were promoted as Assistant Controller of Legal Metrology on 06.04.2018. The said promotion is also not questioned by 23 respondents No.3 and 4. In other words, for more than 27 years, respondents No.3 and 4 accepted the ranking of the petitioners above them and also they accepted the promotion of petitioners prior to their promotion. Therefore, the respondents No.1 and 2 in the guise of correcting the mistake or wrong could not have altered inter-se seniority of petitioners and respondents No.3 and 4. In fact, petitioners are shown above respondents No.3 and 4 not by mistake, but the ranking assigned to the petitioners above respondents No.3 and 4 is in accordance with law. 18. The seniority list which is finalized and which has attained finality could not have been tinkered by respondents No.1 and 2, in the absence of challenge to the seniority list. Rule 10 of Seniority Rules requires preparation of seniority list for each cadre of service or class of posts in accordance with the provisions of Seniority Rules, which means, the 24 Appointing Authority shall have to update the finalized seniority list or seniority list which has attained finality. 19. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in RAMASWAMY G.T. (supra) while considering Rule 10 of Seniority Rules, at paragraphs 27 and 28 has held as follows: “27. Rule 10 of the Seniority Rules on which strong reliance has been placed by Sri.Narasimhamurthy to sustain his wide proposition reads thus: “10(1)There shall be prepared every year for each cadre of service or class of posts a seniority list consisting of the names of all officers borne on the said cadre or class of posts arranged in order of seniority in accordance with the provisions of these rules. (2) The seniority list under sub-rule (1) shall be prepared by:- (a) The Government for Gazetted cadres of service or classes of posts; 25 (b) The Head of the department concerned for non-gazetted cadres of service or classes of posts; “provided that the Government may also prepare the seniority list for non-Gazetted cadres of any service or class of posts.” 28. This rule directs the preparation of seniority lists in every cadre of every department of Government by the designated authority every year. In case of gazetted cadre/cadres, Government is the authority to prepare seniority lists and in other cadres it is the head of Departments. The object and intendment of this Rule is only to have updated seniority lists in every cadre and nothing more than that. The rule no where authorizes and empowers a review of all earlier promotions and re-determination of all earlier rankings made in the earlier seniority lists. In the process of updating seniority lists, it is even inconceivable to hold that earlier seniority lists which have become final should also be reviewed and a fresh determination made. The rule on its terms does not support the very wide construction and proposition suggested 26 on it. We are of the view that the acceptance of any such view would only lead to disastrous results. We find no merit in this contention of Sri.Narasimhamurthy and reject the same.” (emphasis supplied) 20. In the above decision, a co-ordinate bench of this Court has made it clear that in the process of updating the seniority lists, it is even inconceivable to hold that the earlier seniority lists which have become final should also be reviewed and a fresh determination be made. In other words, the seniority list which has attained finality cannot be reopened and it can only be updated under Rule 10 of Seniority Rules. Thus, in the instant case also, the seniority lists of the cadre of Inspectors of Legal Metrology attained finality under O.Ms. dated 26.06.2006, 08.06.2012 and 01.06.2014. The same could not have been unsettled by publishing one more final seniority list dated 15.09.2021, that too, in the absence of any 27 challenge to the earlier seniority lists or rankings assigned to the petitioners. A seniority list which has attained finality could be tinkered with, if there is order from any Court or Tribunal to that effect when it is challenged. Rectification of mistake by placing reliance on Section 21 of General Clauses Act would not apply to seniority list which has attained finality and operated for more than 20 years. 21. Compassionate appointments are made under 1996 Rules. This is a peculiar case, where petitioners and respondents No.3 and 4 are appointed on compassionate ground under single order dated 20.09.1994 (Annexure-A1). The order of appointment requires the candidates appointed to report to duty within 15 days from the date of receipt of order of appointment. When the order of appointment itself permits or provides 15 days time to the appointees to report to duty from the date of receipt of the order of 28 appointment and when the petitioners and respondents No.3 and 4 have reported to duty within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order of appointment, the same cannot be held against them. 22. Admittedly, petitioner No.1 reported to duty on 17.10.1994, within 15 days from the date of receipt of order of appointment. Petitioner No.1 has succeeded in demonstrating that his order of appointment was dispatched only on 01.10.1994 and he received the same on 08.10.1994 whereas he reported to duty on 17.10.1994, within 15 days from the date of receipt of order of appointment, which is clear from Xerox copy of the cover (even the original cover placed for verification) containing the order of appointment which is placed on record along with memo dated 23.06.2025. 29 23. Petitioner No.2 reported on 01.10.1994 and he is rightly shown above respondents No.3 and 4 who have also reported to duty on 01.10.1994. It is true that Rule 7 of 1996 Rules governs the seniority of compassionate appointees. However, in the peculiar facts of the present case where the petitioners and respondents No.3 and 4 are appointed under a single common order of appointment and where the compassionate appointees are provided 15 days time to report to duty from the date of receipt of the order of appointment, we shall have to fall back on Rule 18 of General Recruitment Rules. Rule 18 of General Recruitment Rules provides 15 days time for reporting to duty, which shall be from the date of dispatch of order of appointment by registered post to the address given by the candidate. The appointment order of petitioners and respondents No.3 and 4 on compassionate ground provides 15 days time to report 30 to duty in terms of Rule 18 of General Recruitment Rules. Therefore, in the peculiarity of the present case, Rule 18 of General Recruitment Rules would come into play. 24. As contended by learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4, Rule 7-A of Seniority Rules would have no application to the facts of the present case. As it is not a case of inter-se seniority of persons to be included in the State-wise list of seniority consequent upon the posts included in the district-wise cadres being included in the State-wise cadre. 25. The Tribunal proceeded to dismiss the applications placing reliance on Rule 7 of Seniority Rules without taking note of the fact of providing 15 days time to the petitioners as well as respondents No.3 and 4 to report to duty under common order of appointment dated 20.09.1994 (Annexure-A1). As 31 observed by the Tribunal, Rule 7-A of Seniority Rules would not apply since it is not inter-se seniority of persons to be included in the State-wise list of seniority consequent upon posts included in the district-wise cadres being included in the State-wise cadre. The Tribunal has committed grave error in placing reliance on Section 21 of General Clauses Act to come to the conclusion that while publishing the impugned seniority list, the respondent-authorities have rectified the mistake. The Tribunal failed to examine as to whether there was really a mistake or error or wrong in assigning ranking to the petitioners above respondents No.3 and 4 and if there is any mistake, whether after nearly 27 years, respondents No.1 and 2 are justified in tinkering with the seniority list which has attained finality. 26. Furthermore, in the provisional seniority list dated 25.01.2021, the petitioners were shown above 32 respondents No.3 and 4 and while finalizing the seniority list under O.M. dated 15.09.2021, the petitioners are shown below respondents No.3 and 4. Since the petitioners are above respondents No.3 and 4 in the provisional seniority list, they had no occasion to file or raise any objection to the ranking assigned to them or to respondents No.3 and 4 in the O.M. dated 15.09.2021. Therefore, assigning seniority to respondents No.3 and 4 above the petitioners under O.M. dated 15.09.2021 is in violation of principles of natural justice (UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER v/s P.K.ROY AND OTHERS) (AIR 1968 SC 850). 27. For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. Hence, the following order: The writ petition stands allowed. The impugned order dated 20.01.2023 in Applications No.4848 & 4849/2021 passed by the Tribunal is quashed. 33 Consequently, ranking assigned to the petitioners below respondents No.3 and 4 i.e., at Sl.No.57 and 62 respectively under O.M. bearing No. PÁªÀiÁE/¹§âA¢-1/¹Dgï-177/21-22 dated 15.09.2021 (Annexure-A9) is quashed. Respondents No.1 and 2 are directed to re-assign seniority to the petitioners above respondents No.3 and 4 in the cadre of Inspectors of Legal Metrology and consequential seniority in the higher cadres. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE MPK CT: bms