( 1 ) THE petitioner claims that he was appointed on 4. 5. 1967 as a Stenographer in Allahabad agricultural Institute, Naini, Allahabad. He alleges that respondent No. 3 was appointed in the society on 10. 12. 1973. It is also alleged that the petitioner was born on 1. 7. 1936 whereas respondent No. 3 was born on 4. 2. 1943. Ignoring the claim of the petitioner for being promoted to the post of Office Superintendent on account of resultant vacancy due to retirement of Ms. Namita Khannavis from the post of Office Superintendent, the respondent No. 3 was adjusted in the said vacancy by an order dated 10. 12. 1991. This order has since been challenged by the petitioner.

( 2 ) SHRI M. A. Qadeer, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that society and the institute are two different organisations. The respondent No. 3 is an employee of the society and the salary of respondent No. 3 is being paid by the society. Whereas the petitioner is an employee of the institute and his salary is being paid under the Payment of Salaries Act. Then again the petitioner being senior in service, he was eligible for being promoted and his case could not have been ignored by adjusting t