S.U.Khan, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 & 2 and learned counsel for the respondent No.5. No one appeared on behalf of respondents No.4, 6 to 17 in spite of sufficient service. Learned counsel appearing for the High Court and its Registrar General supplied a compilation of different orders after providing a copy of the same to the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel of all the parties referred to the documents in the said compilation and learned counsel for the petitioner did not object to use of the said material. Petitioner and respondents No.4 to 17 are employees of this High Court. The dispute in this writ petition revolves around their inter se seniority. Initially, writ petition was filed by three petitioners. Thereafter, two more were added after application for their impleadment was allowed by this Court. Advertisement against which petitioners, private respondents and several other persons were appointed on the post of Routine Grade Assistants (RGA) and typists, was issued on 04.09.1986, copy of which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The first irregularity which appears in the said advertisement is that number of vacancies/ posts against which appointments were to be made was not disclosed. In the advertisement, it was mentioned that reservation is to be provided to the candidates of SC, ST and OBC, handicapped, dependants of freedom fighters etc., however extent of reservation was not provided. Matter of recruitment in the High Court was to be governed by Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conduct) Rules, 1976, however in the advertisement it was not clarified. Written examination was held in February, 1988 and interview was taken in the months of July and August, 1988. In the advertisement only one distinction was provided for the appointments against the posts of RGA and typist. The distinction was that for the post of typist, it was provided that candidate must possess good knowledge of both Hindi and English type-writing. It has been alleged in Para-5 of the writ petition that for the typists, a separate merit list is required to be prepared under Rules 8 & 10 of the Rules. Result was declared on 31.10.1988. A select list on the basis of merit was published. In the select list, there was no indication that which candidate had been selected for the post of typist and which for the post of RGA. Select lists are Annexures-2 and 2-A to the writ petition, which contain the roll numbers. One is termed as result and the other (Annexure 2-A) is termed as merit list. The lists contained the roll numbers of 297 candidates. The original three petitioners were shown at Serial Nos.105, 125 and 137. From perusal of Para-8 of the writ petition, it appears that the list also contained the roll numbers of persons, who were to be treated as candidates in waiting (waiting list). In Para-9 of the writ petition, it has been stated that merit list was not absolutely in accordance with merit but it followed the roster system, hence several persons belonging to reserved category were placed at higher level than the general candidates even though the reserved candidates had obtained less marks. In Para-10 of the writ petition, it has been stated that on 14.11.1988, 83 candidates out of the select list/ merit list were appointed and thereafter 17 more were appointed (total 100). List of those 100 candidates is Annexure- 5 to the writ petition. In Paras-11 to 19 of the writ petition, the list of 100 appointed candidates has also been criticised. In Para-12, it has been stated that 28 candidates, who were at different places, from serial Nos.41 to 98 in the merit list had not been given appointment and at their place 28 persons, who were at different serial numbers from 163 to 270 in the merit list, had been given appointments. The last sentence of Para-12 is that thus petitioners, who were placed at serial No.105, 125 and 137, were excluded. In the earlier part of the said paragraph, excluded serial numbers are mentioned as from 41 to 98, hence it cannot be said that any of the original petitioners were excluded for the reason that in the merit list the numbers of the original three petitioners were 105, 125 and 137. The error, if any, in the said list, therefore, cannot be of any benefit to the petitioners. On the same basis, following assertion in Para-20 of the writ petition is also not justified: "That in the circumstances of the case, a right stood secured in favour of the petitioners to get appointments on the post of Routine Grade Assistant. They could not be deprived of the said right on the basis of unauthorised inclusion of candidates for the posts of typists in the merit list." During arguments the main thrust of learned counsel for the petitioners was that separate merit lists of RGAs and typists should have been prepared and appointments should have accordingly been given. Same thing has been stated in Paras No.17 & 21 of the writ petition. It has been stated in Para17 of the writ petition that: "if the candidates, who had been selected for appointments on the posts of typists are taken out from the merit list, the position of the petitioners would have gone much higher, and a right stood secured in their favour to get appointments on the posts in question much before those candidates, who were placed below them in the merit list but have been offered appointments." Same thing has been stated in Para-20 also. It has further been stated that rostering was done in view of government order dated 15.03.1965 (Para-32 of the writ petition). It has also been stated that in the year 1988-1989, no reservation had been provided for OBCs, hence reservation provided to OBCs in the appointments in question was illegal. Writ petition was filed in November, 1989 with the prayer that appointments of 100 candidates be set aside and a mandamus be issued directing the respondents No.1 & 2 to issue appointment letters to the petitioners. Petitioners were also given appointment on 01.12.1989 subject to the decision of the instant writ petition. Petitioners joined on the posts. In view of appointment of the petitioners just after filing of the writ petition, the main prayer, i.e. prayer No.2, seeking a mandamus directing respondents No.1 & 2 to issue appointment letters to the petitioners has become infructuous. Prayer in the writ petition was not got amended. During the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner raised the contention that petitioners should be treated to be senior to the private respondents, who were appointed in November, 1988. First of all, there is no such prayer in the writ petition, hence it cannot be granted. Secondly, the initial appointment cannot normally be directed to be ante dated. Promotion, regularisation or grant of increments, benefits like higher pay-scale, selection grade etc. may be retrospective but initial appointment cannot be made retrospective. As far as prayer No.(i) for cancellation of the 100 appointments, including the appointments of private respondents, made in November, 1988 is concerned, the same also cannot be granted for the reason that the main ground for the said relief taken by the petitioners was that the petitioners should have been appointed in preference to the private respondents. Moreover, all the 100 appointed candidates have not been made parties in the writ petition, only 14 of them are private respondents in this writ petition. The only challenge was to the placement of the private respondents in the merit list and not to their selection. Petitioners having participated in the selection process, having been appointed and having accepted the appointment are estopped from either challenging the appointment of private respondents or asserting that appointments of the petitioners should be ante dated or treated to have been made along with private respondents and before them. Seniority cannot be counted even before the date of initial appointment. During arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners had indicated that petitioners were not much interested in cancellation of the appointments of private respondents, however they seriously press their prayer for being placed at higher level in the seniority list than the private respondents. Accordingly, there is no merit in the writ petition, hence it is dismissed.;