( 1 ) THIS appeal involves the question regarding inter se seniority of promotees and direct recruits. The posts in question are of District Food and Supplies Controller (for short controller) and the Deputy Director, Food and Supplies (for short deputy Director) in the State of Punjab, governed by the Punjab Food and Supplies Department (State Service Cass II) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ). Rule 6 (l) (g) of the Rules provides for appointment on the post of Controller - (/) by promotion of District Food and Supplies Officer or Superintendent in the Department, (ii)by transfer of Administrative Officer, Food and Supplies, and (iii) by direct appointment. It further provides that 33% vacancies shall be filled by direct appointment. The appointment for the post of Deputy Director is governed by Rule 6 (l) (a) The said appointment is made (i) by promotion of the Assistant Director, food and Supplies/district Food and Supplies Controllers/administrative Officer or officer on Special Duty, (ii)by promotion Of Accounts Officer. Food and Supplies or Assistant Controller of end Accounts, and (iii by transfer of an officer already in the service government of India or of a State government. Seniority is governed by Rule 10 which prescribes that for the purpose of seniority service shall be dividend into four groups. One of those group? is that of Deputy Directors and District organizers, Food and Supplies and another group is of Assistant Directors, Foodand Supplies and Controllers. As per sub-rule (2 of Rule 10 the seniority inter se of members of each group has to be determined by the dates of their continuous appointments in the service

( 2 ) THE appellant and Respondent 3 are promotees having been first promoted as Controller and later as Deputy Director. The appellant was promoted as Controller by order dated 21/4/1973 while Respondent 3 was so promoted by order dated 17/8/1972. Subsequently, the promotion of the appellant to the post of Controller was made effective from 6/12/1972. The appellant was promoted as Deputy Director by order dated 29/12/1981/1/1/19822 while Respondent 3 was so promoted by an order dated 17/2/1981. Respondent 2 was directly appointed as Controller after being selected by the State public service commission, by order dated 9/4/1974. He was promoted as Deputy Director by order dated 10/11/1982. The tentative seniority list of Controllers was circulated by memo dated 6/1/1981 wherein Respondent 2 (placed at SI. No. 44 was shown as junior to the appellant (placed at SI. No. 35 and Respondent 3 (placed at SI. No. 33. Subsequently, in view of the decision of the division bench of the High court of Punjab and Haryana in S. B. S. Virk v. J. S. Bagga the said seniority was revised vide memo dated 7-3-1983 and Respondent 2 was placed at SI. No. 34 while Respondent 3 and the appellant were placed at SI. Nos. 35 and 37 respectively and Respondent 2 was thus shown as senior to the appellant and Respondent 3. By order dated 22/9/1983 Respondent 2 was appointed as Joint Director, Food and Supplies. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid revision of their seniority in the cadre of Controllers and appointment of Respondent 2 as Joint Director, the appellant and Respondent 3 filed a writ petition (Civil Writ Petition No. 4495 of 1983 in the High court of Punjab and Haryana wherein they sought a declaration that they are senior to Respondent 2 as Deputy Directors and prayed for quashing of the order dated 22/9/1983 appointing Respondent 2 as Joint Director. The said writ petition was contested by Respondents 1 and 2. The said writ petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge of the High court by judgment dated 2/8/19833. It was held that the factual averment of the writ petitioners, namely the appellant and Respondent 3, that they had been appointed as Controllers within the quota meant for promotees had not been controverted by the respondents and it was also not disputed that they were so appointed ea