K.S.JHAVERI - (1.)BY way of this Intra-Court Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant " original petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 08-09.05.2002 passed by the Learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.1254 of 2000 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant claiming determination of his seniority from the date he was appointed under the Centralized Recruitment Scheme and allotted to the Revenue Department and not from the date he was appointed in the Agriculture Department was dismissed.
(2.)HEARD learned counsel Mr. C. B. Dastoor appearing for the appellant.
While dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant, the Learned Single Judge has categorically given findings in paragraphs 6 to 8 which are extracted below :-

"6. I am of the view that the reliance on the Government Notification dated 30th March, 1994 and the Government circulars dated 2nd August, 1996 and 2nd November, 1998 is wholly misplaced. The said Notification and the circulars have been issued pursuant to the decision of this Court in the matter of SAFIMIYA G MALEK & OTHERS V. STATE OF GUJARAT & OTHERS {1992 (1) GLR 704}. In the said matter, the challenge was to the determination of seniority of Clerks/Clerk Typists from the date they pass the above referred pre-service post training examination. Considering the relevant rules, the Division Bench of this Court declared ; "In either event, therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that the seniority is being fixed on the basis of the date of entry into the service and regulated thereafter on the basis of the continuous officiation." In compliance with the direction issued in the said judgement and the declaration made therein, the Government has amended the relevant rules under its Notification dated 30th March, 1994. The circulars dated 2nd August, 1996 and 2nd November, 1998 have been issued pursuant to the said amendment. As recorded hereinabove, the matter at dispute was whether the seniority shall be determined on the basis of continuous officiation or should it be determined from the date of passing the examination. In the present petition, that is not the question. The question is whether on reallotment of the petitioner from the office of the District Collector to that under Director of Agriculture, the petitioner's seniority should be determined on the basis of continuous officiation from his initial appointment under the Centralised Recruitment Scheme or should it be determined on the basis of continuous officiation from the date the petitioner was reallotted to the department of Agriculture. The above referred judgement and the Notification dated 30th March, 1994 and the circulars relied upon by Mr. Munshaw shall not apply in the present case.

7. The judgements that shall apply to the facts of the present case are ones in the matters of STATE OF GUJARAT V. H.C.VORA {1992 (1) GLR 282} and of S.S.THAKORE AND OTHERS V. STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS {1992 (1) GLR 68}. In both the above matters, the question was that of seniority of Clerks. In the matter of S.S.THAKORE & OTHERS (supra), the private respondents were the Clerks appointed through selection by Public Service Commission. After having been rendered surplus in the concerned department they were appointed in the Directorate of Civil Supplies (Accounts). Their seniority was determined from the date of their initial appointment through selection by Public Service Commission. The said seniority was challenged before this Court. The Court held that the said respondents were not entitled to the seniority from the date they were initially appointed. However, they should get the seniority from the date they were appointed in the Directorate of Civil Supplies (Accounts). In the matter of STATE OF GUJARAT V. H.C.VORA (supra) also, the writ petitioner was initially appointed as a Commuter. Having been rendered surplus in the parent department, he was allotted to the Sales Tax department. His claim for seniority from the date of initial appointment was rejected by this Court. It was held that the said writ petitioner would get his seniority in the Sales Tax department from the date he was appointed in the Sales Tax department.

8. In the present case, it appears that the petitioner was appointed as a Clerk under the Centralised Recruitment Scheme. He was initially allotted to the Revenue department, that is, in the office of the District Collector. However, on account of abolition of posts, the petitioner was rendered surplus in the Revenue department. The petitioner who was otherwise facing order of discharge was reallotted to the office of the Joint Director of the Agriculture, Vadodara. The order of reallotment dated 20th March, 1968 refers to the reduction in establishment of the Revenue department and discharge of several godown Managers and Clerks from service. Hence it is apparent that on 20th March 1968 the petitioner was already discharged from service in the Revenue department. The said discharge from service cannot be said to be for administrative reasons. The petitioner had, otherwise been discharged from service. For the purpose of seniority the petitioner's appointment in the Agriculture department shall be considered as fresh appointment. Hence, the petitioner should get his seniority in the office of the Joint Director of Agriculture, Vadodara from the date he was appointed in the said office. The same is the view expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of V.K.DUBEY AND OTHERS V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS {(1997) SCC. In the said matter the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that ; "The diesel engine Drivers and the staff working with them operating in one sector, namely, diesel locomotive sector, while electrical engine Drivers and the staff operating on the electrical engines operate on a different sector. Consequent from the gradual displacement of diesel engines, instead of retrenching them from service they were sought to be absorbed by giving necessary training in the trains operating on electrical energy. As a consequence they were shifted to a new cadre. Under these circumstances they cannot have a lien on the posts on electrical side nor can they be entitled seniority over the staff regularly working in the electrical locomotive department."

We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Learned Single Judge. This appeal is devoid of any merits and is accordingly dismissed.