Ritu Raj Awasthi, J. - (1.) THE above two writ petitions involve same set of facts challenging the impugned Select List dated 14.2.2011, therefore, both the writ petitions are connected and a common order is being passed in both the writ petitions.
(2.) NOTICE on behalf of the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 has been accepted by the learned Chief Standing Counsel. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel.
(3.) IT is submitted by the learned Counsels for the Petitioners that the name of the Petitioners of Writ Petition No. 1185 (SS) of 2011 was shown in the earlier Select List dated 22.11.2010, but in the impugned Select List dated 14.2.2011, their names do not find place and the name of the Petitioners of Writ Petition No. 1186 (SS) of 2011, were neither shown in the earlier Select List dated 22.11.2010 nor their names find place in the impugned Select List dated 14.2.2011.;