M.L. Jain, J. - (1.) This petition is directed against the Rajasthan State Electricity Board. Jaipur, and 7 other persons, out of whom the petitioner does not press his claim against respondent No. 7 namely; Shri A.S. Chandra and also against respondents No. 8 to 10. In respect of respondents Nos. 2 to 6, the petitioner G. Singh Rathore claims seniority and has questioned the final seniority list of the Assistant Engineers, published by the Board on October 1, 1970 in which the petitioner has been placed below respondents No. 26. The respondent No. 6 was appointed Junior Engineer on November 25, 1957. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer, on 14 -12 -1961 and the other respondents Nos. 2 to 5 were appointed as Junior Engineers after him in the year 1962. But the respondents No. 2 to 5 were appointed as Assistant Engineers temporarily on 15th November, 1962. The petitioner was appointed as temporary Assistant Engineer with effect from 20th November, 1962. Respondent No. 6 was appointed as such on 25th November, 1962. They were all confirmed on 29 -1 -65. It appears that a Selection Committee was later on appointed by the Board to regularise the promotion of 50 Junior Engineers to the post of Assistant Engineers. The Board approved the recommendations as per the list enclosed with its order dated 29th January, 1965. In this order, the Board stated that the seniority of these officers as determined by the order of preference recommended by the Selection Committee, shall be in the order given in the list. In this list the petitioner was placed at No. 13 and the respondents were below him. It appears that on 19th May, 1966, the Board passed another resolution regarding seniority of the Assistant Engineers. One of the principles that was approved for determination of inter se seniority was that when a junior engineer is promoted, the seniority was to be determined on the basis of his seniority in the lower cadre. In pursuance of this resolution, a tentative seniority list was prepared and circulated on 19 -9 -68. Ultimately, a final seniority list was circulated on 1st September, 1970, which is Ex P.6. In this list, the petitioner has been placed below the respondents. The petitioner has challenged the final seniority list and has prayed that he should be placed above the respondents The contention of the Board is that the petitioner was appointed in 1962, 5 days after the respondents were appointed as Assistant Engineers. It was at that time that the petitioner should have approached this Court if he was aggrieved by this appointment. Further, the petitioner did not care to file any representation when the tentative seniority list was issued on 19 -9 -1968. The petition, therefore, is highly belated. Besides, the petitioner cannot be permitted to question the seniority list because he was given an opportunity to file objection, if he was aggrieved by the tentative seniority list. The second contention of the Board is that the petitioner along with the respondents has been promoted as officiating Executive Engineer and to issue any writ at this stage in respect of his seniority as Assistant Engineers will be a futile direction.
(2.) I have considered over the matter and it appears to me that the petition cannot be thrown out simply because the petitioner did not agitate against his appointment as Assistant Engineer in 1962 or did not file any representation against the tentative seniority list in 1968. The real grievance to the petitioner has arisen on account of final list and if there is any apparent error of law or jurisdiction by which his rights have been effected, then, he has a right to approach this Court for issue of proper direction in this respect. There is no error of jurisdiction and there is also no infringement of principles of natural justice or an error of law is writ large on the face of the Impugned seniority list. There is no explanation given by the Board in their reply, why the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Engineers on 20th November, 1972 and why the respondents 2 to 5 were promoted Assistant Engineers earlier by 5 days. There is also no explanation why the principles which were adopted for the purpose of revision of seniority by a decision of the Board dated 9th May, 1966, were not accurately followed. That decision clearly lays down that on promotion to the cadre of Assistant Engineers, the officers shall carry their seniority in the lower cadre. There appears to be no denying the tact that Shri Rathore was senior to the respondents 2 to 5 (and not to respondent No. 6) by virtue of his earlier appointment as Junior Engineer. That being so, the petitioner should have been placed above the respondents 2 to 5 in the list of seniority dated 1st September, 1970. The fact that he has been promoted along with other respondents as Executive Engineer makes the grant of relief all the more necessary because in virtue of the Board's resolution of 1966, the promotee Executive Engineers will rank in the same order of seniority as they ranked as Assistant Engineers.
(3.) There has been thus a of the regulations regarding seniority for which no other remedy lies else where and on account of which, the petitioner has suffered an injury of substantial nature. I, therefore accept this writ petition and issue a writ of mandamus to the respondent Board to determine and pass a fresh order with regard to the inter se seniority of the petitioner vis -a -vis the respondents Nos. 2 to 5 in accordance with aforesaid observations. The writ petition as against respondents 6 to 10 shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.;