JUDGMENT

Tribhuvan Dahiya, J. (Oral)

This petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the seniority list dated 26.03.2015 (Annexure P-3), and promotion order dated 21.04.2015 (Annexure P-5), vide which the petitioner was illegally ignored in violation of Rule 10(ii) of the Guru Jambeshwar University of Science and Technology, Hisar. Further, a writ of mandamus has been sought directing the respondent-University to re-fix the petitioner's seniority over and above that of respondents No.2 to 9 as per the Rules.

2. Briefly, facts of the case are, the respondent-University advertised 18 posts of Clerk-cum-Data Entry Operator (hereinafter referred to as 'Clerk-cum-DEO') vide advertisement No.24 of 2008, dated 23.10.2008 (Annexure P-1). Out of these, six posts were advertised for general category candidates.

2.1. After conducting written test, computer skill test and typing test, as per the criteria, the candidates were interviewed by the selection committee. The names of candidates selected for appointment were recommended in the order of merit category wise, vide select list dated 18.03.2010 (Annexure P-2/R-5); the petitioner's name was recommended at no.1 in the waiting list of general category. The select list, including the waiting list, was drawn in the order of merit, and the same was approved by the competent authority/Vice Chancellor.

2.2. Ranks in the merit list were decided by the selection committee on the basis of total marks awarded to the candidates in the selection process. The petitioner and respondent No.2 had equal marks (each scoring 74 marks). However, respondent No.2 was placed in the select list of general category and recommended for appointment, and the petitioner at no.1 in the waiting list, on the basis of the former's higher marks in the computer skill test, as per the criteria.

2.3. The selected candidates joined the posts of Clerk-cum-DEO from 23.03.2010 to 26.03.2010, except one candidate Sonia Malhotra, who was placed at no.1 in the select list. Her candidature was cancelled, and the petitioner being first in the waiting list, was offered appointment on the post. He joined as such on 21.07.2010.

2.4. In the meanwhile, seven Class-IV employees were promoted as Clerk-cum-DEO, vide office order dated 31.03.2010. A tentative seniority list of Clerk-cum-DEOs was prepared and circulated vide memo dated 26.03.2015. Private respondents No.2 to 9, who were selected along with the petitioner, were placed at no.16 to 23 in it; whereas, the petitioner was placed at no.31.

2.5 He filed objections to the tentative seniority list vide letter dated 09.04.2015, Annexure P-4, claiming that he was selected in the same selection as were the private respondents, therefore his seniority be clubbed along with theirs. Without deciding the objections, the University promoted fifteen Clerk-cum-DEOs to the post of Assistant-cum-Data Entry Operator/Assistant (hereinafter referred to as 'the Assistant'), vide office order dated 21.04.2015, which included the private respondents as well. The petitioner objected to the same by serving a legal notice (Annexure P-7), but to no effect. Therefore, the instant petition was filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner having been recommended for appointment along with the private respondents, has a right to be placed in the seniority list along with them in the order of merit determined by the selection committee. The respondents have committed an illegality in not doing so, and effecting promotions vide the impugned seniority list, dated 26.03.2015, without deciding the petitioner's objections to the same.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the contrary, points out that the petitione