K.N. Goyal, J. - (1.) THESE two Writ Petitions are directed against judgment of the U.P. Public Services Tribunal whereby opposite party No. 3 in Writ Petition No. 2055 of 1978 who is opposite party No. 1 in Writ Petition No. 1596 of 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the opposite party) has been held to be senior to the petitioners of Writ Petition No. 2055 of 1978 who will hereafter be referred to as the petitioners. The other writ petition, namely, 1596 of 1078 has been filed by the State of U.P. and Director of Agriculture. The said opposite party has already retired during the pendency of these writ petitions but the writ petitions survive because his emoluments and retirement benefits would be affected by the decision in these cases. The opposite party was admittedly appointed as an Agronomist, a post in Section 'C' of Class I of the U.P. Agricultural Service, earlier than the aforesaid petitioners. His appointment was by way of promotion made with the approval of the Public Service Commission. These petitioners were appointed by the direct recruitment through the commission, subsequently to the posts of officer -in -charge in class I Section 'C'. The Government confirmed the said petitioners earlier than the opposite party because posts of Officer -in -charge were treated as forming a separate group from the post of Agronomist, although both the posts carried the same pay scale and grade. The contention of the petitioners and the State Government is that the practice was to make groupwise confirmation and as opposite party has never held post of Officer -in -charge he could not be confirmed as such, The Tribunal has rejected these contentions, having found that the service rules make no mention of a different group in Section 'C' or for groupwise seniority.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. On behalf of the petitioners and the State Government it has again been asserted that the opposite party had never been appointed as officer in -charge and, as such, could not claim seniority of the post. The question of seniority on the post of Officer -in -charge does not arise because the rules do not speak of the post of Officer -in -charge. So far as these posts were concerned, they were created within the cadre by a special order of the Government alongwith the decision that the posts would be filled by direct recruitment through Commission. It is true that the opposite party was also a candidate for the post of Officer -in -charge but according to him, as he had already been, in the meantime, approved by the Commission for the post of Agronomist he had ceased to have any interest in appointment as officer -in -charge'. Howsoever that may be the fact remains that the rule do not provide for groupwise seniority. All the posts in Clause I in Section 'C' must, therefore, be treated as equal as they all carried the same pay -scale. It is purely fortuitous that for administrative convenience separate groups were created by executive order but such administrative arrangement cannot affect the inter -se -seniority of officers holding posts in the same pay -scale and the same grade. A person duly appointed earlier to the grade must be treated as senior to those appointed later.
(3.) IT was also contended by the learned Standing Counsel that the opposite party was not qualified for the post of Agronomist. The Tribunal has noted this argument and found that the Public Service Commission had agreed to relax the requirement of the length of experience required for the post and as the Government, acting on the recommendation of the Commission, had already appointed the opposite party to the post, it was no longer open to the Government to contend that the opposite party was not qualified.;