The court emphasized the importance of maintaining common seniority and dismissed the petitioner's claim for seniority and consideration for promotion as Inspector due to lack of evidence and potential disruption of common seniority.

( 1 ) THE Petitioner in this Writ Petition has challengedthe selections made for the post of Inspector/rpf vide impugned letterdated 18-2-1974 of the Northern Railway (Annexure a ) and also the Jointseniority list of Sub Inspectors Grade 1 and 2 of Uniform and Armed branchesof Northern Railway (Annexure b ), issued on 14/09/1973.

( 2 ) THE main grievance of the petitioner is that his name in the jointseniority list of Sub Inspectors Grade I and II of the Uniformed and Armedbranches of Railway Protection Force Staff, Northern Railway has beenshown at Serial No. 145, which is not correct. In fact his seniority shouldhave been fixed at Serial No. 21 in place of Sh. Kulwant Singh and the persons having seniority up to Serial No. 81, namely, Sh. Mukhtiar Singh Dahiya,had been selected for the post of Inspector/rpf vide Annexure a and assuch being senior he should also have been considered and selected for thepost of Inspector. It amounts to supersession by the junior and as such heis entitled to be considered for the post of Inspector from the date of hisjunior was selected vide Annexure A. According to him, during the pendencyof the writ petition he was promoted by the respondents as Sub Inspectorgrade II from the post of Sub Inspector Grade II (officiating capacity) in themonth of June 1970. In fact the petitioner has been officiating on this postright from December 1966 and length of service as Sub Inspector Grade IIshould have been taken into consideration from 1966 itself and he should beassigned seniority from that year.

( 3 ) I have considered the submission of Mr. Adlakha, learned Counselfor the petitioner. But the same is wholly unacceptable. The rule of seniority has been referred in paragraph 14 of the writ petition and according tothis rule, the seniority of the directly recruited and promoted Sub Inspectorsshall be combined seniority and the method of fixation of seniority as Subinspector has also been indicated therein. There is no material provided inthe petition and no material particulars have been given as to who are thedirect recruitees and who are the promotees and how the seniority has beenfixed. In the absence of this data it is not possible to scrutinize the senioritylist (Annexure B ). However. I have seen prima facie the seniority list annexure B which shows that the petitioner has been appointed as the Sub Inspector Grade I in 1971 although the petitioner had been claiming that he wasappointed in 1966 as Sub Inspector Grade II on the officiating capacity. There is no material to show that the petitioner was appointed in 1966 as Subinspector. Furthermore, this question at this very late stage cannot be reopened as it will unsettle the common seniority of all the employees. Therefore, the seniority list annexure B cannot be quashed as prayed for by thepetitioner. Once the seniority list is sustained, obviously Mr. Mukhtiar Singh,the last person in the selected list annexure A, whose name appears ats. No. 81 in the Seniority List, being senior to the petitioner has to be upheld. The petitioner being junior at S. No. 145 to Mr. Mukhtiar Singh whosename finds place at S. No. 81 in the seniority list annexure B cannot claimthe right of consideration. Since no right has been shown in favour of thepetitioner for the purpose of Selection as Inspector, hence the writ petition isnot maintainable and accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances I make noorder as to costs.