TAPEN SEN, J. - (1.) IN this writ application, the petitioner prays for quashing the order/letter dated 2.2.1996 as contained in Annexure 16, whereby and whereunder his representation in relation to his claim for seniority over the respondent Nos. 8 and 9 has been rejected. He further prays for quashing of Annexure 6 which is the order dated 19.1.1991 by which the respondents Nos. 8 and 9 were provisionally transferred horizontally to the Legal Discipline for a period of one year. The petitioner also prays for quashing of the order dated 27.8.1993 (Annexure 8) by which the respondent Nos. 8 and 9 were permanently absorbed in the Legal Discipline. The petitioner has also made a prayer that the respondents be directed to refix his seniority vis -a - vis the respondent Nos. 8 and 9 in terms of Common Coal Cadre.
(2.) THE contention of the petitioner is that both the respondent Nos. 8 and 9 belonged to the Secretarial Discipline and therefore in terms of the Common Coal Cadre, they could have been horizontally transferred only to the Estate (Now Revenue) Discipline but not to the Legal Discipline where the petitioner was working thereby disturbing his seniority. In this case, notices were issued upon respondent Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 and 9 by order dated 3.9.1996 and on 9.10.1996 the office of this Court pointed out that notices had been issued to the respondent Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 and 9 under registered cover with acknowledgment due on 11.9.1996 and as per Service Report, the service of notice upon respondent No. 8 (M.G. George) was valid. Thereafter both the respondent Nos. 8 and 9 have appeared by filing a vakalatnama on 15.11.1996 which is on record, but no counter affidavit has been filed by them. The fact that they filed vakalatnama is also evident from the office note dated 27.11.1996. So far as the other respondents are concerned, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have filed vakalatnama through Mr. M.M. Banerjea and respondent Nos. 4 to 6 have appeared through Mrs, Banani Verma and as per the order dated 10.10.1996, it is evident that she also represents the respondent No. 7.
(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he was initially appointed on the post of a Legal Inspector on 18.3.1983 which was a nonexecutive grade post, but by order dated 28.10.1989 he was promoted to the Executive Grade E -2 and he joined on that grade on 14.11.1989. According to him the executive grade in the Legal Discipline begins from E -2 Level.;