- (1.) BY the Court.-Nidus of the con­troversy involved in this bunch of writ peti­tion is the placement of S.C. Mai, K.C. Saxena etc. in the seniority-list of Enter­tainment and Betting Tax Inspectors Grade llqua the petitioners herein.
(2.) IN some of the writ petitions, the seniority-list dated 28-10- 1991 is sought to be quashed, inter alia on the ground that the aforestated officers amongst others, who were initially appointed as Entertainment and Betting Tax Inspectors Grade II on deputation have been wrongly placed to rank above petitioners in the Seniority List, albeit, the fact that the petitioners were appointed directly in con­sultation with the Public Service Commis­sion anterior to the regularisation of the services of the aforestated officers in the cadre of Entertainment and Betting Tax Inspector, Grade II. Amongst other reliefs claimed in some of the petitions, the reliefs of quashing the seniority-list of Asstt. Commis­sioner, Entertainment Tax circulated vide office memorandum dated 17-8-2000; the notification dated August 21,2000 of ap­pointments by promotion of Asstt. Com­missioner, Entertainment Tax to the post of Dy. Commissioner, Entertainment Tax: and the seniority list of District Officers, Entertainment Tax circulated vide order dated July 21, 1999, have also been claimed.
(3.) WE have heard Sri A. Kumar and Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocates for the petitioners and Sarvsri R. N. Singh, Senior Advocate and Vinod Swarup, Addl. Advo­cate General, for the respondents.;