of merit of the selected candidates, the petitioner No. 1 had approached this Court by filing Civil Rule No. 1352/1995 seeking an order from this Court for publication of the select list and the particulars of appointments already made to the post of Assistant Inspector of Excise in terms of the select list. Similar writ petitions were also filed by the other writ petitioners as well. By the order dated 29-02-1996, this Court had directed the respondent No. 2 to show the select list to the writ petitioners and issue orders of appointment in terms of the select list. The writ petitioners herein were placed at Sl. Nos. 50, 56 and 57 in the merit list published in the year 1993. Therefore, although the persons below them in the merit list were already appointed in the post of Assistant Inspector of Excise, pursuant to the order of this Court, the petitioners were also appointed as Assistant Inspector of Excise, in which post they joined during the period between 1997 to 2000. However, when the gradation list of Assistant Inspectors of Excise were published, the writ petitioners found themselves placed below the private respondents who were below them in the merit list published in the year 1993. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners had submitted representation before the respondent No. 2 for correction of the gradation list. However, the representation submitted by the petitioners was rejected by the respondent No. 2 vide order dated 05-04-2013 and thereafter, the final gradation list dated 05-08-2013 was published. Aggrieved by the final gradation list dated 05-08-2013, the instant writ petition has been filed.
