1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.3003/1993. : : Shiv Shambu Singh & Ors. Vs. Rajasthan Financial Corporation. : : Date of Order 13.10.2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr.Sajid Ali for Mr.Prahlad Singh for the petitioner. Mr.Virendra Lodha for the respondent. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners have challenged the higher seniority assigned to the persons, who appeared at Serial Nos.24 to 49 in the seniority list dated 22.9.1993 issued by the respondent-RFC. Shri Sajid Ali learned counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioners, who were substantially working on the post of Class-IV, were promoted on the post of Junior Assistant/Typist by order dated 19.3.1986. The aforesaid persons were appointed much subsequent to them could not be, therefore, assigned higher seniority. Learned counsel has argued that the use of the word 'adhoc' in the order of 2 promotion is only a misnomer and in fact their promotions were made substantively against the quota of 5% reserved for Class-IV employee, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to count the entire period from the date of promotion till the issuance of seniority list for the purpose of seniority. Shri Virendra Lodha, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and argued that promotion of the petitioner was made on adhoc and officiating basis purposely because as per the requirement of the rules they were required to qualify typing test before being made permanent. The order of promotion categorically stated they would have to qualify typing test with the speed of 40/30 wpm in English and Hindi respectively for their conformation. Learned counsel argued that the persons at serial No.24 to 49 in the seniority list dated 22.9.1993 were directly recruited on the post of Junior Assistant/Typist against the vacancies of the year 1985-86 to 1987-88 and the petitioners cleared the typing test much later upon which they were made permanent and accordingly assigned seniority. Learned counsel argued that question of correctness of seniority assigned to the aforesaid persons cannot be examined because none of them has been arrayed in the writ petition as respondents. 3 I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments aforesaid and perused the material available on record. The order of promotion on the basis of which the petitioners are claiming seniority over the persons at Serial Nos.24 to 49 (supra) was conditional one and it was clearly stated therein that those promoted by the aforesaid order would have to clarify the typing test before they are considered for conformation. The petitioners did not clarify the typing test before substantive appointment of the aforesaid persons over whom they are claiming seniority. Moreover, those persons over whom the petitioners are claiming seniority are not even impleaded as party respondents in the writ petition. On either of the counts', therefore, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.9