Case: R.S. Makashi and Others Vs. I.M. Menon and Others

High Court was in error in striking down the proviso to rule 7 as being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 39. It now only remains for us to examine whether there is substance in the contention put forward by the writ petitioners that even if the impugned seniority principles laid down in the Government Resolution dated March 22, 1968 are to be regarded as valid, the seniority lists dated No vember 18, 1975 and November 27, 1975 have not been drawn up in accordance with those principles. The first point urged before us is that the effect of clause (b) of rule 7 is to make the provisions of clauses (a) and (b) of rule 4 inapplicable t o merged government servants and to direct that the seniority of the merged Government servants should be determined only in accordance with the principles laid down in the Government Resolution dated April 1, 1963. This argument is based on a to tal misconception of the scope and effect of rule 7 (b). What that rule provides is only that as between the CFD personnel who have been absorbed in the BRO their inter se seniority reckoned on the basis of the principles contained in the Governm ent Resolution dated April 1, 1963 shall be preserved. In other words, the object and purpose of sub-clause (b) is limited to the preservation and maintenance of the pre-existing inter se seniority as between the CFD personnel even after their absorpt ion in the BRO and the said provision does not in any way hamper the operation of the principles laid down in rule 4 for the fixation of the seniority of all the personnel including the merged Government servants in the respective categories in t he BRO. A careful reading of the provision of clause (c) and the illustrations given thereunder makes this position abundantly clear. The aforesaid contention put forward on behalf of the writ petitioners will, therefore, stand rejected. 40. There is, however, some substance in the grievance put forward on behalf of the writ petitioners that in drawing up the impugned seniority lists in purported application of the principles laid down in clause (a) rule 4, many persons who were juniors t o the writ petitioners in the category of Supply Inspectors in the CFD have ranked above the petitioners in the category of Inspectors / Senior Clerks/Deputy Accountants. There are also instances where persons who were working in the CFD as clerks at the time of the merger and were appointed in the BRO as clerks but have been subsequently promoted in the BRO as Rationing Inspectors/Senior Clerks/Deputy Accountants have been shown in the gradation list as seniors in relation to the writ petitioners despite the fact that the writ petitioners were all along functioning as Supply Inspectors in the CFD by virtue of their having been recruited to the said cate- gory in that organisation. We do not find anything i n rule 4 (a) which warrants such an unfair treatment being meted out to persons like the petitioners who were directly recruited as Supply Inspectors in the CFD. Rule 7 clearly lays down that the operation of clause (a) of rule 4 is subject to the lim itation specified therein, namely, that in the case of merged Government servants their inter se seniority will be preserved in tact. Hence, no person who was functioning as a junior in relation to the writ petitioners in the category of Supply Inspe ctors in the CFD can be assigned seniority or rank above the writ-petitioners in the cadre of Rationing Inspectors/Senior Clerks/Deputy Accountants in the BRO. Similarly, no person who has been taken into the BRO as a clerk from the CFD can un der any circumstances be placed above the writ petitioners in the gradation list of Rationing Inspectors/Senior Clerks/Deputy Accountants of the BRO. It is clear from the averments contained in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government that the aforesaid principle has been violated while preparing the two impugned gradation lists dated November 18, 1975 and November 27, 1975. The explanation given in the counter-affidavit for adopting the said course does not appear to us to be acceptable or sound. It was pointed out by the counsel for the respondents (writ petitioners) that Exhibit A produced along with the counter-affidavit of the first respondent herein shows that as many as 30 persons, wh o had joined the BRO as Clerks and were subsequently promoted as Rationing Inspectors, have been shown as seniors in relation to the writ petitioners in the gradation list dated November 18, 1975. Similarly, Exhibit B gives the names and par ticulars of persons who were appointed as supply Inspectors in the CFD subsequent to the appointment of the petitioners, but who have nevertheless been shown in the impugned gradation list as seniors to the writ petitioners in the corres ponding cadre in the BRO. We have already made it clear that on a combined reading of rules 4 and 7 of the impugned seniority rules, the inter se seniority of the CFD personnel has to be strictly maintained in tact, and that no person who was ju nior in the CFD in the category of Supply Inspector can go above his senior in that (Organisation after being absorbed in the BRO, and also that no person who has been taken as a clerk in the BRO can go above persons absorbed therein in the category of Rationing Inspectors.In the light of what we have said above, the impugned seniority lists in so far as they have been drawn up in devitation from the legal position explained above call for immediate revision. We would accordingly dire ct respondents 23 and 24 (State of Maharashtra and the Controller of Rationing, Bombay) to revise the two impugned seniority lists and refix the ranking assigned to the writ petitioners and others in the light of what we have said in this judgment. 41.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]we have unhesitatingly come to the conclusion that the view expressed by the High Court that clauses (a) and (c) of rule 4 and the proviso to rule 7 of the impugned Government Resolution dated March 22, 1968 are violative of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, is unsustainable in law and that the direction given by the High Court to the State Government to prepare a fresh seniority list without taking into consi deration the aforesaid provisions of the impugned Government Resolution and to give to the writ petitioners consequential benefits, including promotions and the emoluments on the n basis of such revised seniority gradation list was not called for. W e are also of opinion that the High Court was wrong in over- ruling the preliminary objection raised before it by the present appellants that the writ petition in so far it sought to challenge the legality of the Government Resolution dated March 22, 1968, was highly belated and was liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches and delayIt is said that if this was the practice the guarantee of Art. 32 would be destroyed. But the article no where says that a petition, howsoever late, should be entertained and a writ or order or direction granted, howsoever remote the date of infringement of the fundamental right. In pr actice this Court has not been entertaining stale claims by persons who have slept over their rightsThe learned Counsel for the petitioners strong ly urges that the decision of this Court in M/s. Tilokchand Motichands (2) case needs review. But after care fully considering the matter, we are of the view that no relief should be given to petitioners who, with out any reasonable explanation, approach this Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution after inordinate delay. The highest A Court in this land has been given original Jurisdiction to entertain petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution. It could not have been the intention that this Court would go into stale demands after a lapse of yearsIt is said that Art. 32 is itself a guaranteed right. So it is, but it does not follow from this that it was the intention of the constitution makers that this Court should discard all principles and grant relief in petitions filed after inordinate delay. We are not anxious to throw out petitions on this ground, but we must administer justice in accordance with law and principles of equity, justice and good conscience. It would be unjust to deprive the respondents of the rights which have accrued to them. Each person ought to be entit led to sit back and consider that his appointment and promotion effected a long time ago would not be set aside after the lapse of a number of yearsThe Government Re solution of March 22, 1968 must have come to the knowledge of the writ petitioners at least when the provisional seniority list dated May 28, 1971 was circulated amongst the staff of the BRO. Thereafter, in November 1972, a final Gradat ion List of Rationing Inspectors/Senior Clerks/Deputy Accountants of the BRO as on April 1, 1968 had been published and the said list was circulated to all the members borne on the concerned categories of the organisation. It was expres sly stated in both the aforesaid lists that the ranking of personnel had been effected in accordance with the principles laid down in the Government Resolution dated March 22, 1968. The writ petitioners did not file any objections against th e provisional list despite representations having been invited, nor did they take any steps to question the validity of the final gradation list or the seniority principles laid down in the Government Resolution of 1968, on the bas is of which the said list had beenl later, in April 1973, another provisional Gradation List of personnel working in the aforesaid categories was published by the Controller of Rationing and the said list, which was a lso drawn up in accordance with the seniority principles enunciated in the Government Resolution of March 22, 1968, had been admittedly brought to the knowledge of the writ petitioners. They did not file any objections against the said list within the time prescribed. And what is more significant is that even in the earlier representations filed by writ petitioners 1 to 3, which they filed in November 1973, no objection or protest was raised by them against the principles for determina tion of seniority laid down in the Government Resolution of 1968. The Controller of Rationing informed writ petitioners 1 to 3 in December 1973 itself that the representations stood rejected since the seniority and rank assigned to them in the provisional Gradation List were in strict conformity with the principles laid down in the Government Resolution of1968.Eventhere after, the petitioners did not wake up and it was only on January 31, 1976 that they approached the High Court by filing the present writ petition out of which this appeal has arisen seeking to quash the Government Resolution of 1968 and the Gradation Lists of November 18, 1975 and November 27, 1975.The petitioners have not furnished any valid explanati on whatever for the inordinate delay on their part in approaching the Court with the challenge against the seniority principles laid down in the Government Resolution of1968.As already indicated by us, the fact that the Government had subsequentl y passed a Resolution dated March l, 1974 directing the regularisation of the temporary appointments of non-P.S.Cs. clerical personnel working in Ministerial posts in the different Government Departments in Greater Bombay, has no relevancy at a ll in this context of dealing with the question of delay and laches on the part of the petitioners in taking steps to challenge against the Government Resolution of1968.The inter se seniority between the petitioners and the other personnel regularly absorbed in the BRO who have come over to the BRO as "released Government servants" is not in any way affected by the said Government Resolution of April 1, 1974, inasmuch as it has been expressly made clear therein that the temporary pe rsonnel who are entitled to the benefit of regularisation thereunder were to be assigned seniority only on the basis that regular appointments were effected on the date of issue of the said order. The learned Single Judge of the High Court was, th erefore, clearly in error in thinking that the passing of the Government Resolution of 1974 furnished a fresh cause of action for the petitioners for agitating their contentions regarding the invalidity of the Government Resolution of1968.We ar e unable to appreciate the further reason stated by the learned Single Judge, that the respondents had not placed on record any factual data to show the extent of promotions made on the basis of the seniority list of 1972 and the manner in which the promotees would be affected if the relief was granted to the writ petitioners, and the same we find to be is based on a totally incorrect approach. It is to be noticed that there was no dispute before the High Court that from t he date of publication of the provisional list of May 28, 1971, which was expressly based on the principles laid down in the Government Resolution of 1968, the seniority and rank of all the personnel in concerned categories had been fixed in a ccordance with the principles laid down in the impugned Resolution. In the counter-affidavits filed in the High Court on behalf of the State Government and the Controller of Rationing as well as in the affidavits filed by the other r espondents, it had been specifically averred that innumerable promotions had been made during the period of six years on the basis of seniority as fixed in accordance with the impugned rules and many officers had gone up by two or three sta ges as a result of such promotions. Further, there is the clinching fact that the writ petitioners themselves had impleaded as many as 162 officers as respondents on the ground that they were all likely to be affected in case the re liefs claimed in the writ petition were granted. In these circumstances, we consider that the High Court was wrong in over-ruling the preliminary objection raised by the respondents before it, that the writ petition should be dismissed on the preliminary ground of delay and laches, inasmuch as it seeks to disrupt the vested rights regarding the seniority, rank and promotions which had accrued to a large number of respondents during the period of eight years that had intervened b etween the passing of the impugned Resolution and the institution of the writ petition. We would accordingly hold that the challenge raised by the petitioners against the seniority principles laid down in the Government Resolution of March 22, ]968 ought to have been rejected by the High Court on the ground of delay and laches and the writ petition in so far as it related to the prayer for quashing the said Government Resolution should have beenn the merits also , we do not find any substance in the attack levelled by the petitioners against the legality and validity of the seniority principles laid down in the impugned Government Resolution of March 22,1968.We shall briefly indicate our reasons for reaching this conclusion. The BRO was a totally new Department which was constituted on March 1, 1966 pursuant to the Government Resolution dated February 11, 1966. Under the said Resolution, it was directed that the staff for manning the new organisation should consist of:(a) the skeleton staff already sanctioned under an earlier Government Resolution dated October 21, 1965 for carrying out the preliminary work in connection with the establi shment of the new organisation (BRO);(d) the existing staff under the Controller of Foodgarins distribution, Bombay, Consisting of 384 posts which were to be merged with a new Bombay Rationin g office (BRO) with effect from March 1, 1956;(c) personnel drawn on deputation from other departments of the State Governments; and(d) persons directly recruited to the BROThe Government Re solution of March 22, 1968 must have come to the knowledge of the writ petitioners at least when the provisional seniority list dated May 28, 1971 was circulated amongst the staff of the BRO. Thereafter, in November 1972, a final Gradat ion List of Rationing Inspectors/Senior Clerks/Deputy Accountants of the BRO as on April 1, 1968 had been published and the said list was circulated to all the members borne on the concerned categories of the organisation. It was expres sly stated in both the aforesaid lists that the ranking of personnel had been effected in accordance with the principles laid down in the Government Resolution dated March 22,1968.The writ petitioners did not file any objections against th e provisional list despite representations having been invited, nor did they take any steps to question the validity of the final gradation list or the seniority principles laid down in the Government Resolution of 1968, on the bas is of which the said list had beenl later, in April 1973, another provisional Gradation List of personnel working in the aforesaid categories was published by the Controller of Rationing and the said list, which was a lso drawn up in accordance with the seniority principles enunciated in the Government Resolution of March 22, 1968, had been admittedly brought to the knowledge of the writ petitioners. They did not file any objections against the said list within the time prescribed. And what is more significant is that even in the earlier representations filed by writ petitioners 1 to 3, which they filed in November 1973, no objection or protest was raised by them against the principles for determina tion of seniority laid down in the Government Resolution of1968.The Controller of Rationing informed writ petitioners 1 to 3 in December 1973 itself that the representations stood rejected since the seniority and rank assigned to them in the provisional Gradation List were in strict conformity with the principles laid down in the Government Resolution of1968.Eventhere after, the petitioners did not wake up and it was only on January 31, 1976 that they approached the High Court by filing the present writ petition out of which this appeal has arisen seeking to quash the Government Resolution of 1968 and the Gradation Lists of November 18, 1975 and November 27, 1975.The petitioners have not furnished any valid explanati on whatever for the inordinate delay on their part in approaching the Court with the challenge against the seniority principles laid down in the Government Resolution of1968.As already indicated by us, the fact that the Government had subsequentl y passed a Resolution dated March l, 1974 directing the regularisation of the temporary appointments of non-P.S.Cs. clerical personnel working in Ministerial posts in the different Government Departments in Greater Bombay, has no relevancy at a ll in this context of dealing with the question of delay and laches on the part of the petitioners in taking steps to challenge against the Government Resolution of1968.The inter se seniority between the petitioners and the other personnel regularly absorbed in the BRO who have come over to the BRO as "released Government servants" is not in any way affected by the said Government Resolution of April 1, 1974, inasmuch as it has been expressly made clear therein that the temporary pe rsonnel who are entitled to the benefit of regularisation thereunder were to be assigned seniority only on the basis that regular appointments were effected on the date of issue of the said order. The learned Single Judge of the High Court was, th erefore, clearly in error in thinking that the passing of the Government Resolution of 1974 furnished a fresh cause of action for the petitioners for agitating their contentions regarding the invalidity of the Government Resolution of1968.We ar e unable to appreciate the further reason stated by the learned Single Judge, that the respondents had not placed on record any factual data to show the extent of promotions made on the basis of the seniority list of 1972 and the manner in which the promotees would be affected if the relief was granted to the writ petitioners, and the same we find to be is based on a totally incorrect approach. It is to be noticed that there was no dispute before the High Court that from t he date of publication of the provisional list of May 28, 1971, which was expressly based on the principles laid down in the Government Resolution of 1968, the seniority and rank of all the personnel in concerned categories had been fixed in a ccordance with the principles laid down in the impugned Resolution. In the counter-affidavits filed in the High Court on behalf of the State Government and the Controller of Rationing as well as in the affidavits filed by the other r espondents, it had been specifically averred that innumerable promotions had been made during the period of six years on the basis of seniority as fixed in accordance with the impugned rules and many officers had gone up by two or three sta ges as a result of such promotions. Further, there is the clinching fact that the writ petitioners themselves had impleaded as many as 162 officers as respondents on the ground that they were all likely to be affected in case the re liefs claimed in the writ petition were granted. In these circumstances, we consider that the High Court was wrong in over-ruling the preliminary objection raised by the respondents before it, that the writ petition should be dismissed on the preliminary ground of delay and laches, inasmuch as it seeks to disrupt the vested rights regarding the seniority, rank and promotions which had accrued to a large number of respondents during the period of eight years that had intervened b etween the passing of the impugned Resolution and the institution of the writ petition. We would accordingly hold that the challenge raised by the petitioners against the seniority principles laid down in the Government Resolution of March 22, ]968 ought to have been rejected by the High Court on the ground of delay and laches and the writ petition in so far as it related to the prayer for quashing the said Government Resolution should have beenn the merits also , we do not find any substance in the attack levelled by the petitioners against the legality and validity of the seniority principles laid down in the impugned Government Resolution of March 22,1968.We shall briefly indicate our reasons for reaching this conclusion. The BRO was a totally new Department which was constituted on March 1, 1966 pursuant to the Government Resolution dated February 11, 1966. Under the said Resolution, it was directed that the staff for manning the new organisation should consist of:(a) the skeleton staff already sanctioned under an earlier Government Resolution dated October 21, 1965 for carrying out the preliminary work in connection with the establi shment of the new organisation (BRO);(d) the existing staff under the Controller of Foodgarins distribution, Bombay, Consisting of 384 posts which were to be merged with a new Bombay Rationin g office (BRO) with effect from March 1, 1956;(c) personnel drawn on deputation from other departments of the State Governments; and(d) persons directly recruited to the BROThe Government Re solution of March 22, 1968 must have come to the knowledge of the writ petitioners at least when the provisional seniority list dated May 28, 1971 was circulated amongst the staff of the BRO. Thereafter, in November 1972, a final Gradat ion List of Rationing Inspectors/Senior Clerks/Deputy Accountants of the BRO as on April 1, 1968 had been published and the said list was circulated to all the members borne on the concerned categories of the organisation. It was expres sly stated in both the aforesaid lists that the ranking of personnel had been effected in accordance with the principles laid down in the Government Resolution dated March 22,1968.The writ petitioners did not file any objections against th e provisional list despite representations having been invited, nor did they take any steps to question the validity of the final gradation list or the seniority principles laid down in the Government Resolution of 1968, on the bas is of which the said list had beenl later, in April 1973, another provisional Gradation List of personnel working in the aforesaid categories was published by the Controller of Rationing and the said list, which was a lso drawn up in accordance with the seniority principles enunciated in the Government Resolution of March 22, 1968, had been admittedly brought to the knowledge of the writ petitioners. They did not file any objections against the said list within the time prescribed. And what is more significant is that even in the earlier representations filed by writ petitioners 1 to 3, which they filed in November 1973, no objection or protest was raised by them against the principles for determina tion of seniority laid down in the Government Resolution of1968.The Controller of Rationing informed writ petitioners 1 to 3 in December 1973 itself that the representations stood rejected since the seniority and rank assigned to them in the provisional Gradation List were in strict conformity with the principles laid down in the Government Resolution of1968.Eventhere after, the petitioners did not wake up and it was only on January 31, 1976 that they approached the High Court by filing the present writ petition out of which this appeal has arisen seeking to quash the Government Resolution of 1968 and the Gradation Lists of November 18, 1975 and November 27, 1975.The petitioners have not furnished any valid explanati on whatever for the inordinate delay on their part in approaching the Court with the challenge against the seniority principles laid down in the Government Resolution of1968.As already indicated by us, the fact that the Government had subsequentl y passed a Resolution dated March l, 1974 directing the regularisation of the temporary appointments of non-P.S.Cs. clerical personnel working in Ministerial posts in the different Government Departments in Greater Bombay, has no relevancy at a ll in this context of dealing with the question of delay and laches on the part of the petitioners in taking steps to challenge against the Government Resolution of1968.The inter se seniority between the petitioners and the other personnel regularly absorbed in the BRO who have come over to the BRO as "released Government servants" is not in any way affected by the said Government Resolution of April 1, 1974, inasmuch as it has been expressly made clear therein that the temporary pe rsonnel who are entitled to the benefit of regularisation thereunder were to be assigned seniority only on the basis that regular appointments were effected on the date of issue of the said order. The learned Single Judge of the High Court was, th erefore, clearly in error in thinking that the passing of the Government Resolution of 1974 furnished a fresh cause of action for the petitioners for agitating their contentions regarding the invalidity of the Government Resolution of1968.We ar e unable to appreciate the further reason stated by the learned Single Judge, that the respondents had not placed on record any factual data to show the extent of promotions made on the basis of the seniority list of 1972 and the manner in which the promotees would be affected if the relief was granted to the writ petitioners, and the same we find to be is based on a totally incorrect approach. It is to be noticed that there was no dispute before the High Court that from t he date of publication of the provisional list of May 28, 1971, which was expressly based on the principles laid down in the Government Resolution of 1968, the seniority and rank of all the personnel in concerned categories had been fixed in a ccordance with the principles laid down in the impugned Resolution. In the counter-affidavits filed in the High Court on behalf of the State Government and the Controller of Rationing as well as in the affidavits filed by the other r espondents, it had been specifically averred that innumerable promotions had been made during the period of six years on the basis of seniority as fixed in accordance with the impugned rules and many officers had gone up by two or three sta ges as a result of such promotions. Further, there is the clinching fact that the writ petitioners themselves had impleaded as many as 162 officers as respondents on the ground that they were all likely to be affected in case the re liefs claimed in the writ petition were granted. In these circumstances, we consider that the High Court was wrong in over-ruling the preliminary objection raised by the respondents before it, that the writ petition should be dismissed on the preliminary ground of delay and laches, inasmuch as it seeks to disrupt the vested rights regarding the seniority, rank and promotions which had accrued to a large number of respondents during the period of eight years that had intervened b etween the passing of the impugned Resolution and the institution of the writ petition. We would accordingly hold that the challenge raised by the petitioners against the seniority principles laid down in the Government Resolution of March 22, ]968 ought to have been rejected by the High Court on the ground of delay and laches and the writ petition in so far as it related to the prayer for quashing the said Government Resolution should have beenn the merits also , we do not find any substance in the attack levelled by the petitioners against the legality and validity of the seniority principles laid down in the impugned Government Resolution of March 22,1968.We shall briefly indicate our reasons for reaching this conclusion. The BRO was a totally new Department which was constituted on March 1, 1966 pursuant to the Government Resolution dated February 11, 1966. Under the said Resolution, it was directed that the staff for manning the new organisation should consist of:(a) the skeleton staff already sanctioned under an earlier Government Resolution dated October 21, 1965 for carrying out the preliminary work in connection with the establi shment of the new organisation (BRO);(d) the existing staff under the Controller of Foodgarins distribution, Bombay, Consisting of 384 posts which were to be merged with a new Bombay Rationin g office (BRO) with effect from March 1, 1956;(c) personnel drawn on deputation from other departments of the State Governments; and(d) persons directly recruited to the BROClause (c) of rule 4 which is the next provision that has been struck down by the High Court merely states that the seniority of Government servants in the cadre of Senior Clerks/Ra tioning Inspectors/Deputy Accountants shall be refixed in accordance with the principles laid down in clauses (a) and (b) of rule4.We have repelled the challenge against clause (a) of rule 4 and no challenge has been raised by th e petitioners before us against clause (b) of the said rule. It must automatically follow that the aforesaid provision contained in clause (c) of rule 4 is perfectly valid and constitutionalThat takes us on to the proviso to rule 7 which i s the only other provision struck down by the High Court. Clause (a) of rule 7 lays down that in the case of Government servants taken into the BRO on release from one and the same office, their seniority inter se in their former office shall be maintained in the BRO. Clause (b) is a similar provision relating to the "merged Government servants" (ex- CFD personnel). Clause (c) of rule 7 lays down that the inter se seniority of persons directly recruited in the former CFD organi sation shall be governed by the principles set out in the Government Resolution dated April l,. It isfurther stated in the said clause that in regard to persons who were taken to the CFD from one and the same Government office/department, they shall take their rank according to their inter se seniority in the office/ department from which they were drawn. Thereafter, follows the impugned proviso which lays down that where there is a clash of principles contained in the Gov ernment Resolution dated April 1, 1963 with the seniority inter se in the former department, the seniority inter se in the former Department shall prevail. The principles for fixation of inter se seniority of personnel working in the CFD ha d been enunciated by the Government in the Resolution dated April 1,. Whathas done under the impugned proviso is only to state that with respect to persons who have been drafted into the CFD organisation from one and the same Government depar tment on deputation basis, their inter se seniority in the former department shall not be disturbed and that to the said extent a deviation should be made from the principles laid down in the Government Resolution dated April 1,. Wefail to see how the said direction contained in the impugned proviso for preservation of the inter se seniority of deputationists who have been drawn from one and the same Government department to serve the CFD can be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable. I t is a just and whole- some principle commonly applied in such situations where persons from other departments are drafted to serve on deputation their inter se seniority in the parent department should be respected and preserved during the period of such deputation to the new, therefore, consider that the High Court was in error in striking down the proviso to rule 7 as being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of thet now only remains for us to examine whether there is substance in the contention put forward by the writ petitioners that even if the impugned seniority principles laid down in the Government Resolution dated March 22, 1968 are to be regarded as valid, the seniority lists dated No vember 18, 1975 and November 27, 1975 have not been drawn up in accordance with those principles.The first point urged before us is that the effect of clause (b) of rule 7 is to make the provisions of clauses (a) and (b) of rule 4 inapplicable t o merged government servants and to direct that the seniority of the merged Government servants should be determined only in accordance with the principles laid down in the Government Resolution dated April 1,This argument is based on a to tal misconception of the scope and effect of rule 7. Whatthat rule provides is only that as between the CFD personnel who have been absorbed in the BRO their inter se seniority reckoned on the basis of the principles contained in the Governm ent Resolution dated April 1, 1963 shall be preserved. In other words, the object and purpose of sub-clause (b) is limited to the preservation and maintenance of the pre-existing inter se seniority as between the CFD personnel even after their absorpt ion in the BRO and the said provision does not in any way hamper the operation of the principles laid down in rule 4 for the fixation of the seniority of all the personnel including the merged Government servants in the respective categories in t he BRO. A careful reading of the provision of clause (c) and the illustrations given thereunder makes this position abundantly clear. The aforesaid contention put forward on behalf of the writ petitioners will, therefore, stand rejectedThere is, however, some substance in the grievance put forward on behalf of the writ petitioners that in drawing up the impugned seniority lists in purported application of the principles laid down in clause (a) rule 4, many persons who were juniors t o the writ petitioners in the category of Supply Inspectors in the CFD have ranked above the petitioners in the category of Inspectors / Senior Clerks/Deputy Accountants. There are also instances where persons who were working in the CFD as clerks at the time of the merger and were appointed in the BRO as clerks but have been subsequently promoted in the BRO as Rationing Inspectors/Senior Clerks/Deputy Accountants have been shown in the gradation list as seniors in relation to the writ petitioners despite the fact that the writ petitioners were all along functioning as Supply Inspectors in the CFD by virtue of their having been recruited to the said cate- gory in thatorganisation.Wedo not find anything i n rule 4 (a) which warrants such an unfair treatment being meted out to persons like the petitioners who were directly recruited as Supply Inspectors in the CFD. Rule 7 clearly lays down that the operation of clause (a) of rule 4 is subject to the lim itation specified therein, namely, that in the case of merged Government servants their inter se seniority will be preserved in tact. Hence, no person who was functioning as a junior in relation to the writ petitioners in the category of Supply Inspe ctors in the CFD can be assigned seniority or rank above the writ-petitioners in the cadre of Rationing Inspectors/Senior Clerks/Deputy Accountants in the BRO. Similarly, no person who has been taken into the BRO as a clerk from the CFD can un der any circumstances be placed above the writ petitioners in the gradation list of Rationing Inspectors/Senior Clerks/Deputy Accountants of theBRO.It isclear from the averments contained in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government that the aforesaid principle has been violated while preparing the two impugned gradation lists dated November 18, 1975 and November 27, 1975. The explanation given in the counter-affidavit for adopting the said course does not appear to us to be acceptable or sound. It was pointed out by the counsel for the respondents (writ petitioners) that Exhibit A produced along with the counter-affidavit of the first respondent herein shows that as many as 30 persons, wh o had joined the BRO as Clerks and were subsequently promoted as Rationing Inspectors, have been shown as seniors in relation to the writ petitioners in the gradation list dated November 18, 1975. Similarly, Exhibit B gives the names and par ticulars of persons who were appointed as supply Inspectors in the CFD subsequent to the appointment of the petitioners, but who have nevertheless been shown in the impugned gradation list as seniors to the writ petitioners in the corres ponding cadre in theBRO.Wehave already made it clear that on a combined reading of rules 4 and 7 of the impugned seniority rules, the inter se seniority of the CFD personnel has to be strictly maintained in tact, and that no person who was ju nior in the CFD in the category of Supply Inspector can go above his senior in that (Organisation after being absorbed in the BRO, and also that no person who has been taken as a clerk in the BRO can go above persons absorbed therein in the category of Rationing Inspectors.In the light of what we have said above, the impugned seniority lists in so far as they have been drawn up in devitation from the legal position explained above call for immediatee wouldaccordingly dire ct respondents 23 and 24 (State of Maharashtra and the Controller of Rationing, Bombay) to revise the two impugned seniority lists and refix the ranking assigned to the writ petitioners and others in the light of what we have said in this judgmentAfter giving our anxious consideration to the arguments addressed by counsel appearing on both sides,