6.5.2009 Present: Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R. K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. A.G. and Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. A.G. for the respondents. CWP(T) No.4265/2008 (OA No.623/97) Petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):- “(i) that the impugned order contained in Annexure A-3 dated 29.1.1997 whereby the respondents No. 4 to 23 have been promoted may be quashed and set aside. (ii) That this Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly issue any appropriate writ, order or direction especially in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents No. 1 to 3 to promote the applicant as Head Teacher w.e.f. 29.1.1997 or from the day when his junior persons have been promoted. (iii) It is further prayed that the applicant be held entitled to all consequential benefits such as increments, arrears of pay etc. from the date of his promotion. (iv) That the applicant may be held entitled for seniority position at Sr. No. 490 above the respondents No. 4 to 23. (v) That the entire record of the case may kindly be called for and examined. (vi) That the original application may kindly be allowed with costs.” Vide office order dated 21.12.1967 (Annexure A-1), petitioner was appointed as Junior Basic Trained Teacher. His name is reflected at Sr. No. 124. The respondents circulated the final seniority list of JBT Teachers as on 4.6.1984 (Annexure A-2), in which the petitioner’s name is reflected at Sr. No. 490. Names of private respondents No. 4 to 23 are admittedly below the petitioner. In the year 1997, the respondents promoted JBT Teachers as Head Teachers. Vide office order dated 29.1.1997 (Annexure A-3), to the exclusion of the petitioner, private respondents who were admittedly junior to him were promoted to the said post. Aggrieved of the same, petitioner has filed the present petition. The State in its reply has stated that while determining the seniority and issuing the seniority list (Annexure A-2), the petitioner’s adhoc service was wrongly considered and when the mistake was discovered correct seniority was assigned to the petitioner from the date of his regular appointment. Admittedly, no notice for revising the seniority list and assigning petitioner’s seniority was ever issued to him by the State. The Governmental instructions, as contained in Hand Book on Personal Matters, Volume III, Second Edition, Para 35.7(d), stand violated. That apart this Court has consistently held that even adhoc service shall be considered for the purpose of determining the seniority. {Direct Recruits vs. State of Maharashtra (1990) 2 SCC 715}. Petitioner, therefore, was wrongly not considered for promotion. The petition was filed in the year 1997 and it is stated at the bar that the private respondents who were proceeded ex-parte have since retired. Even the petitioner stands retired. Hence, no notice is required to be issued to the said private respondents. Petitioner was wrongly ignored for promotion as he was otherwise eligible. But for the illegal action of revising the list on the part of the State he would have been promoted on the date when his juniors were promoted. In the facts and circumstances, it is directed that the respondents may consider the petitioner to be deemed to be promoted w.e.f. 29.1.1997, the date when persons junior to him were promoted as Head Teacher. As a corollary thereof, the petitioner would be entitled to all consequential benefits. The respondents are directed to release the same within a period of three months from today, failing which, thereafter petitioner shall be entitled to interest @9% per annum. The petition is disposed of as such. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. May 6, 2009 (rana)