U.C.Srivastava, J. - (1.) With an assertion that the petitioner is senior to the opposite parties he filed the instant writ petition praying for a writ of quo warranto to respondents 3 to 15 to show under what authority they are holding their respective offices. Writ of mandamus has also been prayed commanding respondents 1 and 2 to revert the respondents 3 to 15 to their substantive posts of Senior Cane Development Inspectors/Cane Protection Inspectors and hot commanding respondents 3 to 15 not to occupy the respective offices which they held in an ad hoc capacity and to work only on their substantive posts and commanding respondents 1 and 2 to prepare a seniority list of District Cane Officers, Assistant Cane Commissioners and Deputy Cane Commissioners.
(2.) Opposite parties 3 to 15 were confirmed as Senior Cane Development Inspectors in the Department and they were promoted on the ad hoc posts of Assistant Cane Commissioners. They were so promoted between the years, 1968 to 1970. Out of them opposite parties 5, 6, 7, 9 and 15 have retired from service while opposite parties 3 and 10 have expired. Out of the remaining opposite parties, opposite parties 13 and 14 were working on the posts of District Cane Officers, while others are working as Assistant Cane Commissioners which post has now been upgraded to that of the Deputy Cane Commissioner and opposite parties 10 and 11 are working on the post of Deputy Cane Commissioner from before the up gradation. Till before the year 1979 there was no statutory Rule regarding appointment and promotion in the cane department and in the year 1979 for the first time statutory Rules were framed known as U P. Cane (Gazetted) Service Rules, 1979. Under the said Rules 50% parses of the District Cane Officers are to be filled through direct recruitment and 50% have been reserved for promotion from the lower cadre. It appears that prior to the framing of these Rules the practise of direct appointment as well as by promotion from the lower cadre was prevalent in the Department for appointment or promotion to the higher post including that of the District Cane Officers.
(3.) In response to the advertisement, dated 20th September, 1969, for various provincial services the petitioner also appeared in the said examination and was selected by the U. P. Public Service Commission as District Cane Officer. After resigning his previous service he joined the post of District Cane Officer on 1-6-1973. The petitioner made representations to the Department alleging himself to be senior and in the year 1977 he was promoted to the ex-cadre post of Assistant Cane Commissioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that the opposite parties whose substantive post is that of the Cane Inspectors are continuing on the higher post on ad hoc post for the last so many years.;