A.M.AHMADI, J. - (1.)These two petitions raise a common question as to whether the Departmental Promotion Committee had while preparing the select list for promotion applied the correct criterion. The facts leading to these two petitions briefly stated are as under.
(2.)Re: Special C.A. 512 of 1983: The petitioner was appointed a daily rated clerk with effect from 2/08/1974. In due course she was appointed as Lower Division Clerk from 1/04/1977. She was then promoted to officiate as Upper Division Clerk (Grade VI) with effect from 8/09/1982. The select list prepared on 7/01/1983 Annexure D to the petition for pro notion as Upper Division Clerk shows that her juniors shown at S. Nos. 4 to 11 have been included in the said list while her name does not figure therein. She has therefore challenged the validity of the said select list.
(3.)Re: Special C.A. No. 880 of 1983: The petitioner and respondent No. 3 were appointed Junior Clerks on the same day that is 11/09/1970 and were promoted as Senior Clerks/Upper Division Clerks (Grade VI) again on the same day that is 12/09/1978 However since the petitioner was older in age to respondent No. 3 he was shown to be senior to respondent No. 3. The petitioner was promoted on ad hoc basis as Assistant in the scale of Rs. 425-700 with effect from 18/09/1982. However when the Departmental Promotion Committee considered the case of the petitioner as well as respondent No. 3 and others for the purpose of preparing a select list for promotion the name of respondent No. 3 was included in the said list out the name of the petitioner his senior did not figure therein. He has therefore filed this petition challenging the said select list.