- (1.) ADMIT. Appearance on behalf of opposite parties no. 1 and 2 has been put in by Sri P. N. Gupta, learned Chief Standing Counsel, who prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Issue notice to opposite parties no. 3 and 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Chief Standing Counsel for opposite parties no. 1 and 2. The petitioner has alleged that juniors to the petitioner were promoted on the post of Joint Director by the order dated 14. 07. 2005 and the case of the petitioner was not considered in the said selection, as the relevant documents of the petitioner were not available with the Departmental Promotion Committee. He further submits that the petitioner was granted promotion on the post of Joint Director by the order dated 12. 08. 2006 and in accordance with Rule 6 of the U. P. Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991, the petitioner will regain the seniority on promotion. The learned Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties no. 1 and 2 submits that against the tentative seniority list the objections were invited by the competent authority and after considering the objection the impugned seniority list was finalised by the State Government. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The petitioner has alleged that juniors to the petitioner were promoted on the post of Joint Director by the order dated 14. 07. 2005 and in the said selection certain documents of the petitioner were not available with the Departmental Promotion Committee and the petitioner was promoted on the post of Joint Director by the order dated 12. 8. 2005. The petitioner has alleged that inter se seniority of Scheduled Castes Officer has to be determined as per Rule 6 of the U. P. Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991. Rule 6 of the U. P. Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991 is as under: Rule-6 "seniority where appointment by promotion only from a single feeding cadre:- Where according to the service rules, appointment are to be made only by promotion from a single feeding cadre, seniority inter se of persons so appointed shall be the same as it was in the feeding cadre. " The petitioner has also alleged that against the tentative seniority list an objection was preferred by the petitioner on 15. 05. 2008 in which it was inter alia stated that the seniority of the petitioner be restored to its original number. The petitioner has also alleged that the seniority of Sri Shovh Nath who was also promoted on 12. 8. 2005 along with the petitioner has been restored to its original place and he has been promoted to the next higher post of Additional Director. We, therefore, stay the operation and enforcement of the impugned Seniority List dated 11. 10. 2008, so far as, it relates to inter se seniority of the Scheduled Castes Officers till the next date of listing. .;