- (1.) The petitioner has a two-fold grievance. Firstly, he claims to be senior to respondents 3 to 6 as a clerk and challenges the order dated September 2, 1977 by which respondents 3 to 5 were promoted as Aisistants. Secondly, the petitioner complains that he was in any case senior to respondent No.7 and had a right to be considered for promotion as an Assistant before the said respondent could be promoted. He, consequently, impugns the order dated October L2, 198tf by which respondent No.7 was promoted as Assistant on purely ad hoc basis.
(2.) As lor the first grievance, it is the admitted position that the respondents were appointed as clerks on different dates from December 27, 1961 to February 13, 1964. The petitioner was admittedly appointed as a clerk on temporary basis on June 6, 1964. His date of continuous appointment as a clerk is obviously later than the dates on which the respondents had started working as such. Consequently, the petitioner can have no claim tor seniority against respondents 3 to 6.
(3.) Mr. Palwalia, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that vide order dated May 13, 1909, the Respondent-Board had decided to equate the pay scales of the posts oi clerks and Octroi Moharrirs. He further submits that on February 27, 1971, the Cantonment Board had passed a resolution by which the cadres of Tax Collectors, (irade 1 and Clerks were ordered to be merged On this basis, learned counsel submits that the petitioner who was appointed as a Moharrir on July 21, I960 should rank senior to respondents 3 to 6. Mr. Vashisht, on the ilher hand, points out that the (i.O.C.-in-Chief, Western Command had not approved the resolution parsed by the Board regarding the merger of two cadres.;