S.B. C. W r it Pet it ion No. 4 3 3 5 / 9 6 . ( San t osh Ku m ar Sh ar m a Vs. St at e of Raj . & Or s.) Dat e of Or der : 3 0 / 0 3 / 2 0 1 0 . HON'BLE MR. MOHAMMAD RAFI Q,J. Mr. RC Joshi, for the petitioner. Mr Anant Bhandari, Dy. Govt. Counsel, for respondents. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur dated 3.6.96 by which his appeal was dismissed. In the appeal, the petitioner had claimed higher seniority to the respondents No. 3 to 8 and also questioned their promotions to the post of District Industries Officer by order dated 16.6.92 (Ex.4). The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that by virtue of the provisions contained in the Schedule appended to the Rajasthan Industries Subordinate Services Rules, 1966, promotion to the post of District Industries Officer was to be made from different 10 cadres including that of Inspector, Weight and Measures, post on which the petitioner was working, Industries Extension Officer and Economic Investigator. The respondents were under an obligation to prepare and publish an inter-linked seniority of the members of all these 10 services for the purpose of promotion as per requirement of Rule 24 of the said Rules especially its proviso, according to which the seniority inter se the person holding officiation in column 5 and Schedule I to the rules for the purpose of promotion was to be prepared on the basis of length of continued officiation followed by regular selection on the post from which promotion is to be made. The learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal was wholly unjustified in rejecting the appeal of the petitioner simply in terms that the petitioner was directly recruited as Inspector, Weight and Measures on 11.8.73 whereas 5 other persons were promoted on the same post by order dated 14.11.73, and therefore, while services of respondents were to be counted from their officiating on the post of Inspector, Weight and Measures, he would be liable to be ranked junior from the respondent No. 3 to 8, who started officiating in their respective cadres of different dates in the month of August, 1973. The learned counsel submitted that even if it was so, the petitioner cannot be held junior for the same because, he, as per the proviso to Rule 24 was liable to be ranked senior to the private respondents No. 3 to 8, at least for the purpose of promotion to the post of District Industries Officer. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that he would now have no objection if such similar benefit is also extended to the 5 persons whom the respondents treat senior to the petitioner as Inspector, Weight and Measures because in any case nothing has been placed on record to show that the appointment of the petitioner by way of direct recruitment was made against the vacancies of 1973-74 in which year they were promoted. The learned counsel for the respondents opposed the petition and submitted that the Tribunal was fully conscious of all these facts and was of the view that an anomalous situation would arise if the petitioner is ordered to be treated senior to the private respondents because his 5 seniors in his parent department as Inspector, Weight and Measures would, by virtue of proviso to Rule 24, were liable to be placed below him in the seniority list prepared for the purpose of promotion. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment of the Tribunal and also the material on record. I do not find any plea set up by the petitioner either before this Court or before the Tribunal that his appointment by way of direct recruitment was made against the vacancies relating to any year earlier than 1973-74; his actual appiontment was made on 11.8.73 in which year itself, Shri JN Tiwari, NK Sharma, RM Sharma and KL Vyas were appointed by way of promotion on the post of Inspector, Weight and Measures on 14.11.73 as per the relevant rules and promotees of the same year are liable to be ranked senior to the direct recruitment of the same year which year in the present case was 1973-74. If we go by proviso to Rule 24 and on that basis, his seniority list is prepared which is for the purpose of promotion, the officiation of the petitioner in the post of Inspector, Weight and Measures started from 14.11.73, whereas the private respondents No. 3 to 5 started officiating in the corresponding post from 14.8.73; respondent No.6 from 16.8.73, respondent No.7 from 17.8.73; and respondent No.8 from 6.9.73. It was in such an anomalous situation that the Tribunal held that the persons in the other feeder cadres are treated junior to the petitioner and he is treated senior to them, the resultant position would be that many persons senior to him in parent Department would still be liable to be treated junior to the private respondents. This certainly would not be the intention of the rules because the criteria of length of continued officiation in Rule 24 quoted has been made subject to “any predetermined seniority of persons” in Rule 24 itself. The seniority list of each cadre is such “predetermined seniority” which cannot be disturbed while making an interlaced list. I, therefore, do not find any merit in the writ petition, and the same is dismissed. ( MOHAMMAD RAFI Q) ,J. Gan dhi/ - P.A. Item no. 10