IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 22 of 2010 Mohan Singh and others. …Appellants. Versus Collector/District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar and others. …Respondents. Mr. V.B.S. Negi, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. H.M. Raturi, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Manoj Tiwari, Senior Advocate with Mr. Alok Mehra, Advocate for respondent nos. 3 and 4. Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. J.S. Khehar, C.J, (Oral) 1. Learned counsel for the appellants states that the appellants are liable to be adversely affected by the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 16.2.2010 (while disposing of Writ Petition (S/S) No. 870 of 2004), it is submitted, that in case respondent nos. 3 and 4 are found suitable for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar Kanoongo, as per the order passed by the learned Single Judge the appellants will automatically rank junior to him. Despite being adversely affected, learned counsel for the appellants states, that the appellants were not impleaded as party respondents in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 870 of 2004. 2. Since it is not disputed at the hands of the learned counsel for the appellants that respondent nos. 3 and 4 were wrongly ignored for consideration for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar Kanoongo when the appellants were considered as such, learned counsel for the appellants states that the appellants do not dispute the directions issued by the learned Single Judge, whereby respondent nos. 3 and 4 have been directed to be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant 2 Registrar Kanoongo by convening a meeting of the Special Departmental Promotion Committee. 3. In the aforesaid eventuality, the issue that remains for consideration is the consequential seniority, inter se, between the appellants and respondent nos. 3 & 4, in the event respondent nos. 3 and 4 are found suitable to the post of Assistant Registrar Kanoongo by the special Departmental Promotion Committee. Insofar as the instant issue is concerned, learned counsel for the appellants states that the appellants would be satisfied if the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 16.2.2010 disposing of Writ Petition (S/S) No. 870 of 2004 is modified by directing the respondents to determine the inter se seniority of the rival parties on the basis of the statutory rules. Insofar as the instant modification is concerned, learned counsel for the respondents (including the private respondents) state that they have no objection to the same. 4. In view of the above, the instant Special Appeal is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to first consider the suitability of respondent nos. 3 and 4 in terms of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge. Thereupon, if respondent nos. 3 and 4 are found suitable, their inter se seniority as against the appellants herein shall be determined under the prevalent statutory rules. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C.J.) 26.3.2010 Rathour