LAKSHMANAN, CJ. - (1.) HEARD Mr. S. K. Malik, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. S. S. Vyas, learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) THE promotion of the petitioner as Goods Guard Grade `b' on the basis of the reservation in restructuring, was under challenge since the beginning and the seniority list dated 19. 7. 88 in which the petitioner Manohar Lal and other SC/st candidates were shown senior, was also under challenge and, therefore, after the decision of the SLP filed by C. M. Singh and 34 others in their favour, the seniority had to be revised as per the judgment of the Supreme Court and the position of seniority of the petitioners, as urged by the counsel for the respondents, was liable to be revised. As a consequence of the change of the seniority, the date of promotion is also required to be changed, which was done by the official respondents vide order Ex. P/2. It is further submitted by the respondents that the petitioner Manohar Lal has not been revered but he has only been put to work as Senior Passenger Guard in the same pay and same grade. As already noticed, the petitioners and others have not reverted to any post of lower pay and grade. They have been simply put to work as Sr. Passenger Guard in the same pay and grade. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have been reverted, has no merit. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. .;