Rajesh Balia, J. - (1.) The petitioner challenges the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Annexure-8 dated 28.4.2000, rejecting the Original Application No. 402/1993, preferred by the petitioner as he was aggrieved with the interse seniority between herself and respondent No. 3 D.K. Ajmera on the post of senior clerk.
(2.) The case of the petitioner has been that she has been appointed as junior clerk on 21.10.1978 and has been promoted as senior clerk on adhoc basis on 8.2.1989. On the other hand, the respondent No. 3 was appointed as junior clerk and was promoted on adhoc basis as a senior clerk only on 31.7.1992. In the seniority list of the junior clerks (Annexure-A/4), the inter se position of the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 has been shown to be at No. 2 and No. 6 respectively.
(3.) Thus, throughout the respondent No. 3 has been junior to the petitioner. However, the adhoc appointment given to the respondent No. 3 on 31.7.1992 was converted into the regular appointment prior to the petitioner and therefore in the cadre of the senior clerk, he has been shown senior to the petitioner. This, according to the petitioner results in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India in the matter of providing conditions of service as far as he is concerned.;