BALIA, J. - (1.) THROUGH this writ petition, the petitioners, who are six in number challenge the validity of the consolidated seniority list (Annex. /4) dated 28. 4. 1999 of the Officers of Rajasthan Judicial Service for short `rjs') manning different posts in the hierarchy of RJS as on 31. 5. 1998.
(2.) THE present writ petition has come up for hearing before us on a reference having been made by a Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 9. 1. 2001. In the first instance, two provisional seniority lists were published on 13. 7. 98 inviting objections thereto. One provisional seniority list (Annex. 1) related to Officers holding posts of Civil Judges (Senior Division) cum Additional Chief Judicial Magistrates and another provisional seniority list (Annex. 2) pertained to the Civil Judges (Junior Division) cum Judicial Magistrates. The provisional seniority list (Annex. 1) has been prepared on the basis of the respective date of promotion of the Officers from the post of Munsifs, now designated as Civil Judges (Junior Division) to the posts of Civil Judges now designated as Civil Judges (Senior Division) whereas the provisional seniority list (Annex. 2) has been prepared on the basis of the date of initial appointment as Munsifs now named as Civil Judges (Junior Division) cum Judicial Magistrates and on the basis of the date of confirmation making their appointment as substantive. The Officers of Rajasthan Judicial Service holding the posts of Civil Judges (Senior Division) on the basis of the aforesaid two seniority lists were to be considered enblock senior to the persons included in the seniority list of the Civil Judges (Junior Division) and their inter se seniority was fixed on the basis of continuous officiation on the post since the date of appointment by promotion. On certain objections being raised by different Officers of Rajasthan Judicial service different grounds, only a consolidated seniority list (Annex. 4) dated 28. 4. 1999 was published showing seniority lists of all the incumbents holding the pests encadred in the Rajasthan Judicial Service in hierarchy, on the basis of the date of their recruitment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and on the basis of the date of their confirmation making their appointment substantive irrespective f the fact that after appointment on the posts of Civil Judges (Junior Division), the Officers have been promoted to the next higher post f Civil Judges (Senior Division) on different dates as per the provisions of Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 1995 for the time being in force. The relative position of date of appointment as Munsif and promotions in next higher post of the petitioners respondents in the present case has been shown by the petitioners in the Schedule appended to the writ petition. In has also been shown in the Schedule Annex. R1/1 filed alongwith the reply to the writ petition on behalf of respondent No. 1. The only variation is that subsequent to the issue of the final seniority list, date of promotion of respondent No. 9 Shri A. K. Khandelwal has been corrected from 30. 5. 98 to 7. 7. 97. The respective position in seniority has been shown in Annex. 4. The following table reveals consolidating the datails of appointment as Munsif, as Civil Judge cum CJM and respective place in seniority arranged as per Annex. 4: PARTICULARS OF PETITIOnERS S. No. Name Petitioner No. Date of Appointment as Munsiff Date of Promotion as ACJM Date of grant of selec- tion grade S. No. at which seniority assi- gned as per Anx. 4 1. Smt. Puspa Kochar 1 19. 7. 85 26. 5. 93 4. 4. 98 110 2 Raj Kamal Gaur 2 19. 7. 85 26. 5. 93 4. 4. 98 111 3 Atulkumar Chatterji 3 19. 7. 85 26. 5. 93 4 4. 98 114 4. Manoj Kumar Vyas 4 19. 7. 85 24. 5. 94 4. 4. 98 144 5 Ashok Kumar Vyas 5 30. 3. 88 9. 7. 96 4. 4. 98 175 6 Uma Shanker Vyas 6 16. 4. 90 18. 11. 97 4. 4. 98 212 PARTICULARS OF RESPOnDENTS S. No. Name Respondents No. Petitioner Appointment as Munsiff Date of Promotion as ACJM Date of grant of selection grade Date of which sen-iority assig- ned as per Annex. 4 1. Keshave Dev Gaur 2 25. 10. 72 13. 6. 99 . . . . . 3 2. H. P. Agarwal 3 5. 6. 76 9. 4. 96 . . . . . 5 3. A. K. Suroliya 4 31. 12. 81 9. 4. 96 4. 4. 98 84 4. P. K. Mathur 5 19. 7. 85 13. 6. 99 . . . . . 118 5. Pradeep Jain 6 19. 7. 85 . . . . . . . . . . 121 6. Lal Chand Songara 7 19. 7. 85 13. 6. 99 . . . . . 131 7 K. P. Meena 8 19. 7. 85 . . . . . . . . . . 138 8 Arun Khandelwal 9 22. 7. 89c 7. 7. 97 . . . . . 197
(3.) THE petitioners as well as respondents No. 2 to 9 were initially appointed to the post of Munsif (Civil Judge (Junior Division) in Rajasthan judicial Service as per the particulars given above. As on the date of the impugned final seniority showing senio- rity of Members of Rajasthan Judicial Service as on 31. 5. 1998, all the petitioners were promoted to posts of Civil Judge on the respective date shown against their name. THE respondents No. 2,5,6,7 and 8 were not promoted as Civil Judge Senior Division) at all and only respondents No. 3, 4 & 9 had been promoted to the post of Civil Judge (Senior Division), on the date subsequent to petitioners No. 1 to 4. In the final seniority list, the date of promotion of respondent No. 9 as Civil Judge cum ACJM was shown As 30. 5. 1998, upon consideration of the representation, it was corrected to 7. 7. 1997, vide order dated 2. 6. 1999. THE order dated 2. 6. 1999 interestingly, says about refining seniority of Arun Kumar Khandelwal amongst Civil Judges cum ACJMs as per his altered date of promotion, contrary to stand taken of only one seniority of RJS on the basis of date of recruitment to post of Munsif. Thus, according to above details, the respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 are placed above all the petitioners. Respondents No. 5 to 8 are all placed above petitioner No. 4 to 6 and junior to petitioner No. 1 to 3. Respondent No. 9 is placed above petitioner No. 6 but below all other petitioners No. 1 to 5. It also appears that respondents No. 2 to 9 have been arrayed as parties as respondents, the interest of those who have been assigned higher seniority than those who had moved ahead of them by superseding by promotion to next higher post in the service. Respondents do not complete the list beneficiaries of principle of determining seniority of RJS adopted by respondent No. 1. If the contention of the petitioners that seniority is interlined with promotion is accepted, then the petitioners No. 1 to 4 would rank senior to all the respondent No. 2 to 9. Petitioner NO. 5 Ashok Kumar Vyas would rank senior to respondents No. 2,5,6,7,8 and 9 and a junior to respondents No. 3 and 4 and petitioner No. 6 will also be senior to respondents No. 2,5,6,7 and 8. ;