SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

1. The petitioner joined the services of the Delhi High Court as an LDC on 21.02.1979 and attained her promotions from time to time right till the post of Deputy Registrar on 01.11.2006.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that when her case for promotion to the post of Joint Registrar was considered along with other candidates, she was superseded and not appointed as a Joint Registrar despite being the senior most Deputy Registrar. The representations made by the petitioner against her supersession were also rejected. However, the petitioner, while her representations were rejected, was appointed as a Joint Registrar against a vacancy vide order dated 03.06.2009 with effect from 21.03.2009. Thus, the only question which is required to be considered in the present case is the date from which the petitioner is required to be treated as having joined the post of Joint Registrar and whether her supersession was valid.

3. We may note that learned counsel for the petitioner has conceded that the petitioner does not claim any monetary benefits for the period she has not worked in the post of Joint Registrar, but she seeks appointment from the date of earl