CW 1816/06 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.1816/2006 Fateh Singh Choudhary Versus State & Anr. Date of Order ::: 18/02/09 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. DC Gupta, for petitioner Mr. MF Beg, Addl. Govt. Counsel, for respondents Instant petition has been filed by petitioner assailing final seniority list of LDC working in Zila Parishad, Bharatpur, published on 01/04/04 (Ann.4). Main grievance of petitioner is that all the three private respondent Nos.5, 6 & 7 were juniors to him from the date of their initial appointment but without any reason or rhyme, they were placed senior under seniority list (Ann.4). Petitioner was initially appointed as LDC on 11/04/80 and was transferred to Panchayat Samiti Sewar (Bharatpur) at his own request as is evident from order dt.15/05/99 passed by Rural Development & Panchayati Raj Department; and taking note of R.291 of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (“Rules, 1996”) in regard to determination of seniority of employee transferred under Rules, 1996, petitioner was assigned seniority at the bottom of list in the cadre to which he belongs from the date of his transfer; and persons, with whom petitioner has list with regard to their placement in seniority CW 1816/06 //2// list, respondents inter-alia averred in the reply that they all were transferred in the interest of administration; as such their seniority has been determined on transfer in terms of R.291(i) of Rules, 1996 based on their continuous length of service. According to inter se seniority assigned to petitioner & so also respondent No.5 to 7, they being senior were promoted as UDC on regular basis vide order dt.28/09/05 (Ann.6) . This fact remains uncontroverted from material on record that all of those three respondent Nos.5, 6 & 7 were transferred for administrative reasons and not at their own request and accordingly seniority was assigned in terms of R.291(i) of Rules, 1996. However, as regards petitioner, he was placed at the bottom in the seniority list in the cadre of LDC on account of transfer at his own request. This Court does not find error in the seniority list determined by respondents in terms of R.299 of Rules, 1996. Once respondent Nos.5, 6 & 7 are senior in the cadre of LDC, certainly they rightly got promotions prior to the petitioner to the post of UDC. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.2/1816CW06-18Fb.doc