The main legal point established in the judgment is the balancing of interests between different feeder categories for promotion, based on qualifications and service requirements, and the limited scope of judicial interference in administrative decisions regarding the equivalence of different posts.

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge:

The appellant is the writ respondent, whose appointment Annexure P-7 as Senior Assistant on ad hoc/ stop gap arrangement came to be challenged by the writ petitioners- (respondents herein).

2. The case set out in the writ petition was that petitioner No. 1 had joined as Clerk in the Vidhan Sabha on 2.8.1985, was confirmed on 19.5.1988 and promoted as Senior Clerk on 3.8.1993 and thereafter as Junior Assistant on 2.8.1995. Similarly, the writ petitioners No. 2 and 3 joined the Himachal Pradesh Vidhan Sabha in the cadre of Clerks on 1.7.1986 and 14.7.1986, respectively. All the writ petitioners were working as Junior Assistants in the H.P. Vidhan Sabha, whereas the appellant came to be appointed for the first time as Proof Reader on 23.9.88 and was thus junior to the writ petitioners.

3. The grievance of the writ petitioners was that earlier Clerks, Proof Readers and Junior Assistants were eligible for promotion to the post of Senior Assistants amongst those who had completed ten years service in the feeder category, which was reckoned from the date of appointment in the Vidhan Sabha but now the respondent No.1 had reduced the period of eligibility in case of proof readers and increased the period qua the clerical cadre, which was unfair and arbitrary. It was their allegation that in the joint seniority list circulated, which remained unchallenged, the respondent was shown at Sr. No. 17, whereas the petitioners were all placed above him in the seniority list. They further claimed that they cannot be denied promotion as they were senior to the appellant because of their induction in the feeder cadre was earlier than that of respondent No. 2 (appellant herein).

4. The H.P. Vidhan Sabha was arrayed as respondent No. 1 and filed its reply wherein it has been contended that seniority relied upon by the petitioners was not at all relevant in view of the amendment made in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules (for short, the Rules), whereby seniority of the appellant was to be reckoned above that of the writ petitioners as the rule itself provided that for the purpose of combined seniority “the Proof Readers will be equated with Junior Assistants”. Since the rules were not challenged and had been framed by the competent authority, the respondent No. 1 prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

5. The appellant, who was arrayed as respondent No. 2 in the writ petition filed a separate reply, where he set out a comparison of pay scale granted in his favour viz-a-viz pay scale of the writ petitions to claim that he was holding a post carrying high pay scale and therefore, was entitled to be placed above the writ petitioners in the combined seniority list. It was claimed that grant of higher pay scale to Proof Reader was possibly one of the reasons, which weighed with respondent No. 1 to prescribe lesser years of service for the feeder category for further promotion to the post of Senior Assistant as compared to other feeder posts for which such prescribed length of service was more.

6. The writ petition filed by the writ petitioners came to be allowed vide the impugned judgement holding that since the post was a non-selection post, therefore, it was seniority alone which would govern the selection, subject of-course to the incumbent being otherwise fit. The learned Single Judge though observed that rules did not provide for determination of inter se seniority between the writ petitioners and the appellant herein, however, this very seniority was in fact made the foundation and the basis for allowing the writ petition by assigning the following reasons:-

“.... This stand cannot be accepted. The rules do not provide for determination of interse seniority, between respondent No.2 and the petitioners. Admittedly, till the joint seniority list was being issued, he was being shown junior to the petitioners. Merely on the basis of consideration for eligibility, the respondent cannot be considered to be senior. Th