- (1.) Rajendra Bahadur Bhandari (petitioner) assails a seniority list dated 21st/23rd December, 1981 (Annexure 9) and his grievance is that he is senior to the respondent No. 2 to 8 and his name should be above these respondents in the said seniority list of Upper Division Clerks. In the seniority list in question, names of respondent Nos. 2 to 8, namely, Smt. Rajrani Bhatnagar, Kumari Manju Purohit, Smt. Dropadi Kalani, Hanuman Sahai Sharma, Kamlesh Kumar Dubey, Govind Narain & Saran Gopal Saxena, appear at S. Nos. 12 to 18 whereas name of the petitioner appears at S. No. 19. Factual back drop
(2.) Unquestionably, the petitioner and respondent clerks were initially appointed purely on a temporary basis and as per schedule A annexed to the writ petition, the date of their initial appointment as L.D.Cs is as follow: Petitioner-Rajendra Bahadur Bhandari 11.9.1974 Respondents-Clerks Smt. Rajrani Bhatnagar 1.10.1974 Kumari Manju Purohit 19.10.1974 Smt. Dropadi Kalani 28.11.1974 Hanuman Sahai Sharma 28.11.1974 Kamlesh Kumar Dubey 3.12.1974 Govind Narain Lata 26.12.1974 Saran Gopal Saxena 15.10.1970 No doubt, the petitioner and respondent-Clerks were confirmed on the post of Lower Division Clerks w.e.f. December 1, 1978 vide an order dated December 5, 1978 (Annexure 2), and similarly, the respondent-clerks were promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerks for six months on adhoc basis vide an order dated December 30, 1977 (Annexure 4) whereas the petitioner was promoted as such vide an order dated July 1, 1978 (Annexure 2). However, undisputedly, the petitioner & respondent-Clerks were confirmed as U.D.Cs. w.e.f. 1.4.1980 vide an order dated June 6,1980 (Annexure 3). There is also no dispute that at the time of entry in the service of the respondent No. 1-Board, the petitioner and respondent No. 8 were non- graduates whereas other respondent-Clerks were graduates. And, as per averments made in para 3 of the writ petition, the petitioner has qualified himself as Graduate in Arts in January, 1978, after entry in the service.
(3.) It is significant to note here that the petitioner has neither assailed promotion of the respondents-clerks nor their confirmation on the promotional post of U.D.Cs.-has been challenged nor any prayer to quash the promotion and confirmation orders for the posts of U.D.C. has been made. The challenge is only to the legality of the seniority assigned to the petitioner below the respondents-clerks on the post of U.D.C. in the impugned list (Annexure 9).;