- (1.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are working as Chowkidar-cum-peon for the last many years. The next promotion from the present post is to the post of Clerk. The matter of promotion of class IV employees to the post of Clerk was put up before the respondent-Board in the meeting held on 21.1.2011. A decision was taken by the Board that the Class IV employees who were in the higher scale will be considered first for promotion as Clerk and thereafter the other class IV employees who were in the same pay scales, like, Mali, Peon, Chowkidar-cum-Peon, security employee, cook-cumattendant, sewerman and sweeper will be treated as one category and they will be considered for promotion as per their joint inter-se-seniority on the basis of length of service. The petitioners are aggrieved by the said decision and are claiming their promotion from the date their juniors have been promoted.
(2.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the private respondents are junior to the present petitioners on the basis of length of service, still they have been promoted, whereas, the petitioners have been ignored.
(3.) The petitioners are entitled for promotion from the date the private respondents have been promoted. Petitioners were higher in merit viz- -viz the private respondents and they were entitled for promotion in place of private respondents. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners also submits that the petitioners and private respondents are drawing the same pay scale and promotion should have been made on the basis of length of service. Learned senior counsel has also relied upon the judgment rendered in Rattan Singh v. The State of Haryana and others,1999 3 RSJ 179 in support of his contentions.;