Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
State Of Rajasthan And Ors. vs Dhanraj Sharma And Anr. on 10 April, 1995
Equivalent citations: 1995(3)WLC369, 1995(2)WLN162
JUDGMENT Arun Madan, J.
1. Both the above-named appeals filed under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, arise out of the order, dated 7th October, 1992 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3170/1987, one filed by the State of Rajasthan and the other by Gopal Lal Sharma and others. Since both the above appeals arise out of a single order passed by learned Single Judge of this Court, they are disposed of by this Single common order.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the filing of the aforesaid two appeals are that Dhanraj, respondent in Appeal No. 870/93 who was petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3170/87 viz Gopal Lal Sharma and others and the appellants in appeal No. 352/93 were selected for appointment to the post of Labour welfare Officers subject to the provisions of Rule 8 of the Rajasthan Labour and Welfare Service Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1958") in order of merit as per the list prepared by Rajasthan Public Service Commission (For Short "RPSC"), Under Rule 20 of the Rules of 1958 vide order, dated 16th December, 1982 pursuant to combined competitive examination held by the RPSC for the year 1980.
3. It has been stated in the writ petition that the State Government vide its order, dated 21st September, 1982 superseded the seniority list of the officers prepared earlier by orders dated 24th October, 1981 and 21st September, 1982 and seniority list prepared by order, dated 26th April, 1983. It has been further stated that the substantive vacancies which arose between the initiation and constitution of service from 1967 (17) to 39 in 1980 were classified into vacancies which were required to be filled up by direct recruitment and by promotion in the ratio of 50:50 in accordance with Rule 7 of the Rules of 1958.
4. The writ petition was contested by the State Government, appellant in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 870/93 and respondent in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 352/93 and the plea taken by the State Government was that respondents in appeal No. 870/93 as well as the other appellants in the connected appeal were not entitled to be promoted to their next cadre from the post of Labour Welfare Officers because the promotions were given in respect of posts governed by direct recruitment quota from the initial constitution of service.
5. No reply was filed to show cause notice by non-petitioners and this fact has been specifically recorded in the impugned order of the learned Single Judge wherein he has opined that during the course of hearing a statement had been produced by the learned Counsel showing the position of the vacancies in the cadre of Labour welfare Officers for the years 1979 to 1990. It has been a further observed by the learned Single Judge that it is evidence from the perusal of the chart that between 1979 and 1983-84, there has been backlog of 10 vacancies which were required to be filled by direct recruitment even thereafter vacancies were not sent to the RPSC in the year 1990 by the State Government. This fact has been affirmed by the petitioner who had also produced the statement showing the number of persons appointed as Labour Welfare Officers by direct recruitment and by promotion. This Shortcoming was also pointed out to us during the course of hearing of the appeals by the learned Counsel for the respondents and was also apparent from the perusal of the chart indicating the number of vacancies to be filled up from which it is evident that in the year 1971 8 persons were appointed as Labour Welfare officers by promotion and 14 persons were appointed by promotion in the year 1974. In all 18 persons were promoted in the year 1983. As against this 6 persons were appointed by direct recruitment in the year 1973, 1 in the year 1974, 4 in the year 1982, 1 in the year 1983, 1 in the year 1984 and 2 in the year 1985, in all 15 persons.
6. During the course of hearing of the appeals it was contended by Shri S.M. Mehta, learned Senior Counsel for the State that respondent Dhanraj Sharma was appointed as Labour Welfare Officer as direct recruit on the basis of Selection through competitive examination on 6.12.1982 and he was confirmed on the said post w.e.f. 1.10.1986. The writ petition was filed in this Court on 3rd July, 1987 with a prayer for yearwise determination of the vacancies and following reliefs were prayed for:
(i) Direct the non-petitioner No. 1 to maintain the quota system of 50:50 as required by Rule 7 of the Service Rules;
(ii) direct the non-petitioner No. 1 to determine the vacancies in accordance with Rule 7 as well as Rule 9 of the Rules of 1972;
(iii) Direct the non-petitioner No. 1 to draw a seniority list in accordance with Rule 26(3) of the Rules keeping in view the paras (a) and (b) above.
(iv) the non-petitioner No. 1 be directed to enforce in accordance with law the provisions of Rajasthan Labour Welfare Service Rules in the context of the present matter;
(v) the non-petitioner No. 1 be directed to place the entire facts with respect to the service record of the officers of Rajasthan Labour Welfare Service in terms of judgment delivered by Hon'ble Justice P.N. Singhal (as his Lordship then was) in the case of Gopinath Pllley;
(vi) any other beneficial order or direction which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper be also passed and cost be awarded.
7. The principal questions of law which arose for determination of this Court in the writ petition filed before this Court were as under:
(a) The relative iner-se seniority between direct recruits and promotees in the cadre of Labour Welfare Officers of the Rajasthan Labour and Welfare Service Rules, 1958, whereunder in regard to Labour Welfere Officers a quota system of 50% of vacancies had to be filled up by promotion amongst the Labour Inspectors and 50% by recruitment by competitive examination to be held by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission;
(b) The direct recruitment had not been made timely as envisaged by the Scheme contained in the Rules officiating and/or otherwise promotions were given in respect of posts covered by the direct recruitment quota; without there being a seniority list in accordance with Rule 26(3) of the Rules in respect to Labour Welfare Officers in consonance with and/or as required by quota Rule envisaged by Rule 7(1) (i) of the Rules.
8. During the course of hearing it was contended by learned Counsel for the appellants that recruitment to the post of Labour Welfare Officers by promotion was done in gross violation of the quota rule as envisaged by Rule 7 of the Rules of 1958. It was further contended by larned Counsel for the appellants that the State Government was duty bound to maintain the ratio of 50:50 in making recruitment on the post of Labour Welfare Offers in terms of Rule 7 of the Rules and that the State was also under a legal duty to prepare a seniority list of the persons who were directly recruited on the post of Labour Welfare Officers as well as the list of the promotees keeping in view the provisions of Service Rules for determination of yearwise vacancies which has not been done in the present case. It was further contended by the learned Counsel for the appllants that filling up of the various posts in the service right from initial constitution of service till date was done in such a manner so as to violate he quota rule contained in Rule 7 of the Rules of 1958 and also in violation of cadre strength of the Labour Welfare Officers.
9. Alternatively it was pleaded that non-petitioner No. 1 had failed to determine vacancies in accordance with Rajasthan Service (Recruitment) by Promotion Against Vacancies of Earlier Years) Rules, 1972 arid the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Sonal v. State of Karnataka: AIR 1987 SC 2359.
10. Mr. Ajai Rastogi, Learned Counsel for the respondent in appeal No. 870/93 advanced the following contentions:
(a) that the State Government had faiised to determine the yearwise vacancies in violation of quota rule;
(b) That non-petitioner No. 1, State Government, had failed to determine the relative seniority between the direct recruits and promotees in the cadre of Labour Welfare Officers in violation of Service Rules, 1958 which it was under a statutory duty to do so;
(c) that under the Service Rules with regard to Labour Welfare Offcers a quota system of 50:50 vacancies had to be filled up by promotion from amongst the Labour Inspectors and 50% by competitive examination to be held by RPSC for direct appointment on the post of Labour Welfare Officers which the State Government has failed to implement under the said Rules;
(d) that direct recruitment had not been made timely as envisaged by the scheme contained in the said Rules in officiating and/or otherwise promotions were given in respect of posts covered by direct recruitment quota from the initial constitution of service against the relevant Service Rules and the State Government was obliged to act in accordance with the said Rules, and
(e) that the State Government had failed to draw up saniority list in accordance with Rule 26(3) of the Rules in consonance with quota Rules envisaged by Rule 7(1) (i) of the Rules which has resulted in miscarriage of justice and prejudice to the respondent No. 2
11. In support of the above contentions advanced at the Bar reliance was placed by the learned Counsel on the following decisions of the Apex Court: -
12. K. Siva Reddy and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. , C. Radhaakrishna Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P. and Ors. 1990(1) SLR 136, Makardhwajpal and Ors. etc. v. Smt Neera Yadav and Anr. etc. 1994 (1) SVLR 29, Indra Kumar and Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. 1991 (2) WLC (Raj.) 597, J. Chandrashekhar Reddy v. D. Arora, Chief Seceretary to Govt. Of A.P. and Ors. , G.S. Lamba and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. and The Direct Recruit Class II Enineerig Officer's Association and Ors. 1990 (2) SLR 769.
13. In the matter of K. Siva Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P. and Ors. (Supra) the question which arose for consideration of the Apex Court was regarding determination of substantive vacancies in the cadre of Asst. Engineers. While interpreting Rule 3 of the A.P. (Roads and Buildings) Engineering Service Rules on the question of determination of seniority from the care of Asstt. Engineers, it was held by the Apex Court that there was no justification for the State Government to deprive the petitioners of the benefit of the scheme under the Rules and it should be made available to the direct recruits from the due date. It was further held by the Apex Court that when the State Government by the Rules prescribed the method of recruitment and had put the shame in operation, it had the obligation to comply with the same. The State Government was directed to ascertain the exact number of substantive vacancies available in the category of Asstt. Engineers in service. It was further directed that the seniority list in the cadre of Asstt. Engineers should be re-drawn as directed by the Tribunal by the relevant date keeping in view the directions of the Apext Court.
14. In the matter of Makardhwaajpal and Ors. etc. v. Smt. Neera Yadav and Anr. etc. (supra) the question which arose for determination of the Apext Court on a contempt petition arising out of a writ petition filed before the Apex Court regarding the interpretation of Rule 5(A) of the U.P. Forest Service Rules, 1952,it was held by the Apex Court that in the matter of fixing inter-se seniority of the direct recruits and the promotees in their respective quota, seniority shall be determined in accordance with the quota rule to the posts available in the respective years in which the vacancies had arisen as otherwise existing substantive posts should be filled up by applying Rule 8 of the Rules of 1958. It was directed by the Apex Court that it was incumbent upon the State Government to find out as to how many vacancieas were existing in the year 1974-75 and thereafter every year to determines to how the respective posts stood reserved for direct recruits and promotees in accordance with the quota rule. On so determining the vacancies, the direct recruits would go enblock as seniors to the promotees and the promotee officers in the orders of their seniority be appointed by the Government and will be placed below the direct recruits. Similar exercise for each year in which the Substantive vacancies had arisen should be done. The State Government was consequently directed to undertake fresh exercise in the light of the above directions.
15. In the matter of Rajasthan Council of Diploma Engineers v. The State of Rajasthan and Anr. (Supra) a similar question had arisen for consideration of this Court in the matter concerning interpretation of Rule 9 of Rajasthan Service Engineers (Buildings and Roads Branch) Rules, 1954 (As amended since 1.4.1981) as to what extent the said Rule is mandatory to be followed. It was held by this Court that said rule is mandatory and the appointing Authority is certainly under an obligation to hold recruitment every year but the rule cannot be read in isolation to the other provisions in the rules. There being total absence of any provision with regard to unfilled vacancies of earlier years falling in direct recruitment quota, Rule 9 even if mandatory, cannot justifiably be applied with the same rigour in the case of unfilled vacancies of earlier yers in the quota of direct recruitment as it is to be applied in case of vacancies falling under promotion quota. It was further held by this Court that the right of consideration does not stand denied by the Rules to any inservice candidate against any vacancy of any year falling in the quota of the direct recruitment and hence it cannot be said that the consideration which is essence of Article 16 is being denied to any inservice candidate. So far as question of entry of candidates who could not be considered had the selection been timely held it will be suffice to say that the right of consideration cannot be denied to the candidate who are eligible at the time when actual recruitment is being held. It the consideration against vacancies of earlier years are kept confined to only those who were eligible in such earlier years for direct recruitment it will be impossible to identify the eligible candidates because many of the candidates who were so eligible in respective earlier years may have been appointed elsewhere and it is difficult to identify all such eligible candidates who could enter the race at that time and on comparison of the advancement of the object sought to be achieved by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution in the process, the object of these Articles will be advanced to a greater extent in case all the candidates eligible at the time of holding recruitments are considered against all vacancies rather than keeping the consideration confined to the candidates who are eligible in the respective earlier years only, as by very nature of the term 'exclusion' of the eligible candidates at the time of recruitment is more discriminatory in comparison to the restriction on consideration of candidates who were eligible in respective earlier years. If the above proposition as laid down by this Court is applied to the instant case, it becomes clearly apparent that it will be preposterous to assume that suitable candidates were not available to the State whether by promotion from the inservice candidate or by way of direct recruitment to the RPSC so as to deprive the candidates in these appeals of their right to be considered for appointment as Labour Welfare Officer by promotion as against the vacancies of the earlier years in dispute which had fallen due but were purposely not filled up for the reasons best known to the department. It was consequently held by this Court that the Rajasthan Council of Diploma Engineers was not entitled to any direction regarding non-availability of suitable candidates since the selections were deliberately not held so as to deprive the candidates of their chance of promotion and appointment against vacancies fallen in the quota of direct recruitment because no such direct recruitment was held. It was further held by this Court that compliance of Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Service of Engineers Rules, 1954 as amended, is mandatory. But in view of the absence of any provision regarding unfilled vacancies of earlier years fallen in direct recruitment quota, it cannot be applied for yearwise selections in case of direct recruitment with the same rigour as it is to be applied in the case of vacancies of earlier years in respect of promotion quota.
16. The obvious inference which can be drawn by us keeping in view the aforesaid observations of this Court if applied to the instant case is apathy of the Government/Appointing Authority towards holding yearwise selections according to the rules causes great hardship to the candidates desirous of seeking recruitment by promotion or by direct recruitment and we would like to leave a word of caution to the concerned authorities to see that such unwarranted and uncalled for litigation is avoided in future both in cases of direct recruitment as well as in the case of promotees/inservice candidates so as to avoid recurrence of such happening in future which has resulted in this case in view of unfilled vacancies of earlier years which have not been filled up for a long time.
17. Similarly the Apex Court has expressed its concern for not following the quota rule in the matter of J.Chandra Shekhar Reddy v. D. Arora, Chief Secretary to Government of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. (Supra) where in similar question had arisen for consideration of the Apext Court, since the quota for direct recruits had not been followed resulting in under-recruitment of direct recruits. Following the earlier guidelines as laid down by the Apext Court in 1988 SC860 it was held by the Apext Court that the question of interse seniority on the basis of non enforcement of the Rules from the very beginning may create hardships which would be difficult to mitigate but there was no justification as to why the benefit of the scheme under the rules should not be made available to direct recruits from the relevant time. Following the earlier guidelines it was observed by the Apext Court that all appointments made prior to the relevant date where all promotees or all direct recruits and their interse seniority was not to be disturbed at all. It was further held that the direct recruits so adjusted were also to be given seniority including the deemed date of appointments over the promotees/transferees appointed in the vacancies in the said period in the quota of direct recruits. Keeping in view the aforesaid observation of the Apext Court we are of the opinion that as regards the seniority of those who were appointed in pursuance of the combined competitive examination held by the RPSC in the year 1980 such as the candidates in the instant case keeping in view the backlog of 10 vacancies which were required to be filled up by direct recruitment and which were not sent to the RPSC in the year 1990 by the State Government, neither their appointment nor their inter se seniority should be disturbed at all by the State Qovernment/RPSC and the observations of the learned Single Judge of this Court are not assailable and deserve to be affirmed. We are further of the view that if the competent Authority hud made determination of vacancies for direct recruitment quota in the year in which they had arisen, no such difficulty could arise and the present difficulty has arisen in view of failure of respondents to determine yearwise vacancies which had arisen and which were not filled up by the respondent resulting in difficulties to the concerned candidates. We are further of the opinion that learned Single Judge was absolutely justified in his observation that there is an obligation to make yearwise determination of vacancies for direct recruits as well as promotees and that the competent authority cannot avoid this responsibility by sheer inaction or omission and failure on the part of the competent authority to do so, cannot be used as a basis for denying eligibility to those who are eligible in a particular year but for becoming ineligible subsequently on account of absence of determination of vacancies on yearly basis. With regard to promotion quota posts, no difficulty would arise in view of the provisions contained in Rule 9(2) of the Rules of 1974 and Rule 10(2) of Rules of 1989. We are further of the opinion that the aforesaid rules cast a statutory duty and obligation upon the competent authority to modify the appointment order of the concerned candidates by specifying the year in which they were entitled to promotion which shall correspond to the year in which vacancies against direct recruitment quota of the relevant year were filled up so that there is no difficulty in giving promotion to the deserving candidates.
18. With regard to the vacancies which have not been filled up so far, the State Government as well as the RPSC are directed to determine the exact number of vacancies in the cadre of Labour Welfare Officers and the same shall be advertised immediately or within reasonable time so that the candidates who were eligible may apply as so also opined by the learned Single Judge in his order. We are further of the opinion that the candidates who were eligible earlier as at the time when the vacancies had arisen with reference to their age and qualification, would not become ineligible subsequently on any such ground for their respective appointments.
19. We are in agreement with the observations of the learned Single Judge with regard to the determination of vacancies that after the amendment of Rule 8-A of the Rules of 1962 w.e.f 1.4.1981, even the date on which determination of vacancies is to be made, has been specified in the rules by providing that the Appointing Authority shall determine on 1st April of every year, the actual number of the vacancies occurring during the financial year.
20. In this context it will be pertinent to mention the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of G.S. Lamba and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (supra). The question which had arisen for consideration of the Apext Court was regarding the impugned seniority list which was challenged by the petitioners in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Since the quota Rule had not been adhered to in the matter concerning the appointment of direct recruits on the basis of competative examination held by the UPSC for indian Foreign Service Branch 'B', it was held by the Apex Court that regular promotions which were made in excess of quota and the seniority list drawn up by the department was vlolative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution read with Indian Foreign Service Branch 'B' Rules, 1964 and that enormous departure from quota rule results in breaking down of the quota rule and in such situation the general rule of the length of continuous officiation would prevail. It was further observed that the burden was on the Govt. to show details of implementation of the quota. It was further observed by the Apext Court that in the absence of any valid principles of seniority it is well established that continous officiation in the cadre, grade or service will provide a valid principle of seniority.
21. Likewise in the matter of The Direct Recruits Class II Engineering Officer's Association and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (supra) it was observed by the Apext Court that once an incumbent has been appointed to a post according to the Rule, his seniority has to be counted from the date of his appointment and not according to the date of his confirmation. It was further observed that if the initial appointment is not made by following the procedure laid down by the Rules but the appointee continues in the post uninterruptedly till regularisation of service in accordance with the rules the period of officiating service will be counted.
22. Keeping in view the above said observations of the Apext Court, we are in full agreement with the observations of learned Single Judge that from the perusal of the figures given by the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 1, it is more than evident that there has been a complete violation of the quota rule. It is significant to notice that orders for promotion against the vacancies of earlier years have been issued in the year 1983. A perusal of Annexs. 33, 34, 35 and 36 clearly shows that earlier year quotas have been filled by orders, dated 1st June, 1963. By that time, Rule 9, as it stands today, had already been enacted. It was, therefore, obligatory for the respondent No. 1 to have kept in mind the specific provisions contained in Rule 9(1) (c) while assigning the quota of earlier years to the promotees. Unfortunately respondent No. 1 has totally failed to give effect to the provisions of Rule 9(1) (c). The result has been that all those persons who have been assigned the promotion quota upto the year 1982-83 have been ranked senior to the petitioner. The petitioner has been treated as an appointee of the year 1982, because, in his case the order was issued in the year 1982, even though the vacancies were advertised in the year 1980 and even though the vacancies may relate to a year earlier than the year 1980.
23. Refuting the contentions advanced by Shri S.M. Mehta, learned senior Counsel for the state, has contended at the bar that even assuming that the candidates who were appointed as Labour Welfare Officers in the present case have been denied the benefit of promotion on account of lapses of the department for not determining yearwise vacancies, even then the said candidates are not entitled to succeed in view of the delay and latches on their part, since the writ petition was filed in this Court in the year 1987 after the delay of five years from the date when the cause of action had arisen in favour of the said candidates and that they should suffer the consequences for the delay. It was further contended by Shri Mehta that the department was not obliged to reconsider their seniority after determining the vacancies which had fallen due in a particular year because the things once settled should not be unsettled and many persons junior to the appellant in No. 352/93 and to respondents in appeal No. 870/93 have already received promotion by now and re-determination of seniority would affect the promotion of junior candidates who have already received promotions. It was further contended by Shri Mehta that all necessary parties have not been impleaded as party respondent to the writ petition and on this ground as well the applicants are not entitled to succeed.
24. In support of his contentions advanced at the Bar reliance was placed by the learned Counsel for the appellant on the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of S.S. Moghe and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 1981 SC 1495 wherein the question which had arisen for consideration of the Apext Court was as to whether in a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners were entitled to succeed particularly when no explanation had been given for delay of several years in filing the writ petition. In this case appointments to Aviation Research Center were made both by direct recruitment and from candidates on deputation from other departments in drawing a distinction between two sources from which the appointments were made, i.e., direct recruits and deputationists who had been holding posts in their parent department for several years, it was held by the Apext Court that it was necessary for the Government to envolve fair and reasonable principle for regulating the inter-se seniority of the persons appointed to a new department. It was held by the Apext Court in this context that the provisions laying down does of appointments to different categories were not illegal.
25. keeping in view the facts of the aforesaid case and the proposition of law as laid down by the Apext Court in the aforesaid decision weare of the view that the said judgment of the Apext Court is distinguishable and not applicable to this case both, on facts as well as law, since the question with which we are primarily concerned in this case pertains to the determination vacancies for the earlier years, which have not been determined by the department even as on the date when the amended rules had come into force and that it was obligatory upon the department to determine the exact number of vacancies which were available in a particular year and then to determine the seniority of the candidates who had become eligible for promotion in accordance with the rules so that the seniority of the inservice candidates as well as the direct recruits is not disturbed.
26. We are further of the opinion that the Government itself has created problem for causing delay for the petitioners to have moved this Court by way of writ petitions as they have been anxiously waiting for fixing their seniority.
27. Alternatively Mr. Mehta, learned senior Counsel at the Bar.had frankly conceded that the department is ready and willing to abide by any direction which may be given by this Court, for re-fixation of the seniority of the affected candidates in accordance with the rules.
28. Controverting the arguments of Shri Mehta, Shri Ajai Rastogi contended before us that the concerned applicants in this appeal had moved this Court by filing writ petition in 1987 itself after having waited patiently for reply to the representations made in 1986 and having not received any reply from the department, he was left with no option but to move this Court at the earliest. The first seniority list was published by the department in the year 1990 and hence there is no delay. It was further contended by Shri Rastogi that only two candidates from 1982 batch had joined as Labour Welfare Officers and hence no disturbance can be attributed to the seniority list.
29. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and after considering their rival claims and contentions and also proposition of law as laid down by the Apex Court as referred to above, we are in full agreement with the observations of the learned Single Judge made in the impugned order, dated 7th October 1992 and which does not suffer from any error or infirmity and which deserves to be sustained.
30. As a result of the above discussions the appeal preferred by the State of Rajasthan, i.e., D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 870/93 fails and is dismissed and the State Governmet is directed to maintain the quota system of 50:50 as required by Rule 7 of the Rules of 1958 as well as Rule 9 of the Rules of 1972 and afresh seniority list he drawn up in accordance with Rule 26(3) of the Rules of 1972. The State Government is further directed to re-fix the seniority of respondent Dhanraj Sharma in accordance with the above principles within a period of three months from today and if as a result of refixation of seniority, the said respondent is found to be entitled to any consequential relief for promotion to the next higher post, the same shall be given to him by the State Government within the aforesaid period of three months.
31. With regard to D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 352/93 filed by Gopal Lal Sharma and six others, we are of the view that since they were not parties to the wirt petition filed in this Court and had come to know of the impugned order at a later stage, their seniority position should not be disturbed by the state Government, since they had already been promoted as Labour Welfare Officers as per the requirement of the State and that their due seniority should be maintained by the department. Hence the appellants are entuitled to succeed only to the extent that their seniority as already fixed shall not be disturbed since many of them have received further promotions as Asstt. Labour Commissioners and Deputy Labour Commissioners, respectively and some of them have retired from service. We direct that their seniority shall be maintained from the date of their appointments and they will also be given promotion on the basis of their seniority. Hence the appellants in this appeal are entitled to succeed in part only while maintaining the impugned order, dated 7th October, 1992, passed by learned Single Judge of this Court. Parties are left to bear their own costs.