- (1.) As per the averments made, the petitioners were directly recruited to the post of Auction Recorder/Arrival Recorder on adhoc basis in the office of respondent Board on 19.7.1988 and 23.6.1988 respectively, whereas respondent No. 3 & 4 were appointed as peon in the office of respondent board. The services of the petitioners were regularized w. e. f 1.11.1991. Respondent No. 3 was promoted to the post of Auction Recorder vide order dated 10.12.1998 and respondent No. 4 was promoted to the post of Auction recorder vide order dated 26.7.2000. Both these respondents were given promotion with effect from 2.9.1986. The petitioners never challenged the aforesaid orders. Vide Annexure P1 the respondent-board circulated the tentative seniority list of Auction Recorder/Arrival recorder wherein respondent No. 3 was shown at Sr. No. 257 and respondent no. 4 at Sr. no. 763 whereas the petitioners were shown at Sr. No. 443 and 444 respectively.
(2.) It is the case of the petitioners that on coming to know that the respondents have been given promotion w. e. f 2.9.1986, they submitted objections which were never decided. It is the further case of the petitioners that the respondent-Board circulated another seniority list Annexure P2 wherein respondents no. 3 & 4 were shown at Sr. Nos. 312 & 287 respectively and the petitioners were shown at Sr. No. 484 & 485 respectively. Despite the objections raised by the petitioners, the same were not decided. The petitioners represented to the competent Authority vide Annexure P-3 and requested to rectify the seniority list.
(3.) It is the further case of the petitioners that respondents No. 3 & 4 have been further promoted as Mandi Supervisor on 28.6.2010 and 3.6.2011 respectively vide Annexures P-5 & P-6 and their claim has been rejected regarding seniority over and above respondents No. 3 & 4 vide order dated 30.8.2010 (Annexure P4) illegally and thus, the order Annexure P-4 rejecting their claim and the seniority list Annexures P-1 and P-2 and the promotion orders Annexure P-5 & P-6 of respondents No. 3 & 4, are liable to be quashed.;