D.P.GUPTA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has submitted an application for amendment of the writ petition under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The application is allowed.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner and respondent No. 4 were heard on the basis of the allegations made in the writ petition as amended. The case of the petitioner is that he was shown as senior to the respondent No. 4 in earlier seniority list of clerks working; in the Personnel Branch of the Northern Railway which was issued on May 18, 1970 and on the basis of which the petitioner was promoted in an officiating capacity as A.W.L.I. by the order of the Divisional Personnel Officer, Northern Railway, Jodhpur dated 5/13 -12 -1973 and thereafter by the order dated December 31, 1975 he was transferred from that post to the post of API in an officiating capacity. Subsequently by the order of the Divisional Personnel Officer dated June 8, 1977 the petitioner was reverted from the post of officiating API to his substantive post of senior clerk and the respondent No. 1 has been promoted in his place as officiating API on ad hoc basis, pending selection. The grievance of the petitioner is that he should not have been reverted and the respondent No. 4 should not have been promoted in his place because the petitioner was senior to the respondent No. 4 vide seniority list dated May 18, 1970.
(3.) A show cause notice was issued to the respondents and they have stated in response there to that the respondent No. 4 was employed initially in the erstwhile Grain Shop Department of the Northern Railway with; effect from November 14, 1944 and then he was promoted as a clerk in the said Grain Shop Department from May 1, 1945 Subsequently the respondent No. 4 was absorbed in the Personnel Branch on the abolition of the former Grain Shop Department and was thereafter confirmed as a senior clerk in the Personnel Branch with effect from December 9, 1968. The earlier seniority list which was issued on May 18, 1970 showed the petitioner as senior on the ground that the petitioner was confirmed as a senior clerk with effect from November 6, 1963, while the respondent No. 4 was confirmed on that post with effect from December 9, 1968 although the petitioner was recruited as a clerk on June 24, 1946 while the respondent No. 4 was appointed as a clerk with effect from May 1, 1945.;