The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner's appointment was reappointment, not absorption, as stipulated in Annexure R/1, and the petitioner's failure to challenge the reappointment at the time of issuance of Annexure-3 in 1973, or raise any grievance on subsequent occasions, indicated acquiescence and laches, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.

( 1 ) THIS petition has been filed by the petitioner, claiming a direction to the respondents to give promotion to the petitioner on the post of Office Assistant and office Superintendent, and from the date the persons promoted on the post of U. D. C. after 21. 2. 1966, have been given such promotion, with all consequential benefits. Then, prayer has also been made, to place the petitioner at appropriate place in the seniority list, taking him to have been promoted as U. D. C. with effect from 21. 2. 1966, as per rule 15 (1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of surplus Personnel) Rules, 1969. Then, after filing writ petition, it was amended, and a prayer has also been made for quashing Annexure-R/2 to R/4, being the provisional and final seniority list, and communication of Joint Director (Administration), conveying that the demand of the petitioner for promotion cannot be accepted, unless the seniority is altered from that of 5. 1. 1973.

( 2 ) THE case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as L. D. C. in Panchayat Samiti in the year 1960. Then vide order dt. 13. 4. 1966 he was promoted as u. D. C. w. e. f. 21. 2. 1966. This promotion was on temporary basis, but then, he was subsequently confirmed vide order dt. 3. 2. 1968 (Annexure-2 ). Then, vide order dt. 25. 10. 1972, the petitioner was declared surplus, and then vide order dt. 1. 1. 1973 (Annexure-3), the petitioner was absorbed in the Education Department, and was allotted to Jodhpur range, and was subsequently transferred in Ajmer Range in the year 1990-91. It is then alleged, that when the question of assignment of seniority to the petitioner arose, his name was not included in the seniority list.

( 3 ) THEREUPON the petitioner made representations, and then vide Annexure-6, his seniority was shown to have been fixed w. e. f. 21. 2. 1966. However, the petitioner was not given consequential benefits, like promotion to the post of office Assistant and Office Superintendent, on and from the date the persons junior to him were promoted, therefore, he again submitted representations. The petitioner has produced Annexure-11, being the seniority list of the office Assistants, to show, that the persons promoted as u. D. C. , after the petitioner, have been given promotion against the vacancies of the year 1981-82, and have further been promoted as Officer Superintendents. Then, the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Surplus Personnel) Rules, 1969, hereafter referred to as the Absorption Rules was pressed into service to claim seniority consequent upon absorption, and his consequential entitlement to the promotions. Then, the writ was subsequently amended after the reply was filed by the respondents, and by the amendment para 12a was added, likewise ground (c) and (d), in the grounds, and Clause (ii/a) in the prayer were added. In para 12a, it was contended, that by Annexure R/2 to R/4 the petitioner is being denied the benefit of seniority in the cadre of u. D. C. , and before passing of these orders, no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner, nor copy was given, nor he was otherwise informed. In the newly added grounds it was contended, that the orders were passed without giving an opportunity of hearing, and are arbitrary and unreasonable, and thus violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

( 4 ) THUS, the whole thrust of the writ petition is, that while working as U. D. C. in the Panchayat Samiti, he was declared surplus, and was absorbed vide Annexure-3, and therefore, by virtue of Rule 15 of the Absorption Rules the petitioner is entitled to maintain that seniority, and to get consequential benefits, and that, vide Annexure-6, his seniority was recognised, but then vide Annexure R/2 to R/4 it has been taken away, without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents, contending inter alia, that the petition is belated,