Sharma, J. - (1.) In each of the above numbered writ petitions the dispute is in respect of inter se seniority of the petitioners and the respondents No. 4 and 5, namely Ram Ballabh Sharan Sharma and Kailash Chand Sharma respectively. The facts are almost identical and therefore, we proceed to dispose of all these write petitions by this common order.
(2.) To understand the controversy between the parties in respect of their seniority, it will be proper at the outset to give their dates of initial appointment, promotions and confirmations etc in tabular form in the following table : JUDGEMENT_41_LAWS(RAJ)8_19911.html A perusal of the aforesaid table will show that so far as first four petitioners in the table are concerned, each of them was selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission as Inspector Grade-II (Executive) in accordance with the Rajasthan Subordinate Co-operative Service (Class-I) Rules, 1955 (for short, the 1955 Rules) whereas each of the petitioners whose names appear in the aforesaid table from No. 5 to 8, was appointed as Inspector Grade-II (Audit) under the 1955 Rules. It will further appear that where as the petitioners whose names appear at No. I to 4 in the above table were selected as aforesaid as Inspector Grade II (Executive) by the RPSC on February 20, 1957 the petitioners whose names appear in the aforesaid table from No.5 to 8 were selected by the RPSC under the 1955 Rules as Inspector Grade-II (Audit) on March 14, 1957. The respondents Nos. 4 and 5 Ram Ballabh Sharan Sharma and Kailash Chand Shringi were also selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission as Inspector Grade-II (Audit) on March, 14, 1957. It will further appear that in the merit list prepared by the RPSC of Inspectors Grade-II the names of each of the petitioners namely B.L. Jain, M.L. Jain, Sooraj Prakash Bahl and Ganesh Narain appear at Nos. 19, 15, 18 and 22 respectively and their names appear in that order of preference in the merit lists, the names of the respondents Ram Ballabh Sharan Sharma and Kailash Chand Shringi in that merit list appeared at Nos. 29 and 33 respectively and they have been shown in that order of preference in the merit list. It will further appear that so far as the petitioners whose names appear at No. I to 4 in the table concerned as aforesaid they were selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission as Grade-II (Executive) on February 20,1957, i.e. much before the petitioners whose names appear at No. 5 to 8 and the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 whose names appear at No. 1 and 2 respectively in the aforesaid table in the caption of respondents. Thus, as per the merit list prepared by the RPSC, even the petitioners whose names appear at No. 5 to 8 and who were selected in the same competitive examination as the respondents Nos. 4 and 5, as Inspector Grade-II (Audit) and the names of those petitioners stand at higher place than the respondents, the respondents therefore had and could have had no lis so far as the petitioners whose names appear at Nos.1 to 4 in the aforesaid table.
(3.) It appears that earlier there was some dispute in respect of separate seniority list of Inspectors Grade-II (Executive) and Inspector Grade-II (Audit). The matter was taken up in the case of Baney Singh v. State of Rajasthan and others, 1980 WLN (UC) 481 and the court decided the aforesaid controversy. It may be stated that in the aforesaid case of Banney Singh (supra) two separate seniority lists dated September 27, 1973 and October 28, 1973 of Inspectors Grade-II in the Cooperative Department (Executive) and (Audit) were issued. Issuance of the aforesaid two separate lists was challenged on the ground that the Inspectors Grade-II in the Co-operative Department whether, Executive or Audit, form one class under the 1955 Rules and there should be common seniority list . The court in the aforesaid case of Baney Singh (supra) quashed the aforesaid two seniority lists and directed the respondents in that case to prepare common seniority lists, of Inspector Grade- II in accordance with the date of their substantive appointment as Co-operative Inspectors Grade-II in the light of the observations made in the order. The court allowed six months' time for the purpose.;