JUDGMENT

Special leave granted.

2. Heard counsel for the appellant, the contesting respondent No.5 and the Delhi Administration. The grievance of the appellant is that although he was senior respondent No. 5 Vasu Chimani, he was not placed in the selection grade while his junior was granted that very scale. To support his contention of seniority, our attention was drawn to Annexure A appended to the affidavit of January 4, 1982 (page 21). That document shows that the appellant was appointed on 1st November 1972, whereas the respondent No. 5 was appointed on 1st May 1973. This would show that he was senior to respondent No. 5. It is obvious from the clarification issued by the director or Education dated 4th April 1973, Annexure AA(page 22) that Selection Grade to teachers was to be given on the basis of seniority, subject to fitness. The expression fitness means that there should not be any adverse entry in the Character Rolls of the concerned person at least three years and no disciplinary proceeding should be pending against him. So far as the appellant is concerned indisputably there was no adverse entry in his C.R. nor was any disciplinary proceeding pending against him. Therefo