Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—This writ petition was initially allowed by me on 4.12.2008 without hearing any one on behalf of respondent No. 3, the contesting respondent as no one had appeared on his behalf. Thereafter, rehearing application was filed which was allowed on 14.9.2009 and on the same date arguments of learned counsel for both the parties on the merit of the writ petition were also heard and judgment was reserved.

2.Certain paras of my judgment dated 4.12.2008 which deal with the facts of the case and the point involved are quoted below :

“The dispute in the instant writ petition relates to comparative seniority of petitioner and respondent No. 3. Both of them were Senior Auditors in Local Fund Audit Department, U.P., Allahabad. Both of them were promoted from the Feeder Cadre of Auditor. Admittedly, respondent No. 3 was promoted as senior auditor earlier. However, in the feeder cadre i.e. auditor, respondent No. 3 was junior to the petitioner. The reason of prior promotion of respondent No. 3 is that a particular test was required to be passed for promotion which respondent No. 3 passed earlier. Petitioner was appointed as auditor on ad hoc basis through letter dated 20.7.1976 and his services were regularised against substantive vacancy on 13.12.1979. Thereafter, he was confirmed w.e.f. 1.9.1982 through order dated 18.10.1982. Respondent No. 3 was appointed on 26.7.1976. In the seniority list published on 25.10.1982 for all the auditors, petitioner was at serial No. 149 and respondent No. 3 at 152. Similarly, in the list published on 6.4.1985 also petitioner was shown to be senior than respondent No. 3.

For promotion to the post of senior auditor apart from certain length of service, qualifying subordinate audit service examination is also necessary. Petitioner qualified the said examination on 4.6.1988 and was promoted through order dated 6.10.1988 and thereafter petitioner joined on the promoted post on 31.10.1988.

Thereafter respondent No. 3 was further promoted to the post of senior auditor grade-I through order dated 2.1.1999. However, the petitioner was promoted to the said post through order dated 1.8.2000. The grievance of the petitioner is that in the cadre of senior auditor he should have been treated to be senior to respondent No. 3, hence he should have been promoted to the post of senior auditor grade-I prior to respondent No. 3. It has been stated in para No. 14 that petitioner made representation on 22.1.1998 but it was not decided in spite of several reminders. Another representation is stated to have been made on 7.11.2002. which was rejected on 29.3.2003, copy of order is Annexure 10 to the writ petition. Petitioner again filed objection which was rejected on 20.1.2004. (Annexure 12 to the writ petition) on the ground that respondent No. 3 had passed subordinate audit service examination in the year 1983 while petitioner passed the said examination in the year 1987 (or 1988) hence respondent No. 3 was senior to him. In the seniority list dated 22.12.1997 also petitioner was shown junior to respondent No. 3 in the cadre of senior auditor. Petitioner again filed representation which was again rejected on 7.6.2004, copy of which is Annexure-15. Said orders have been challenged through this writ petition. Annexures 12 and 15 have been passed by Deputy Secretary Government of U.P.

The relevant Rules governing the service in question are U.P. (Local Fund) Audit Subordinate Service Rules 1985. Rule 22(3) of the said Rules dealing with seniority is quoted below :

22(3)

“The seniority inter se of persons appointed by promotion shall be the same as it was in the cadre from which they were promoted.”

The said Rules have been framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India General Rules for seniority in Government service have also been framed by Government of Uttar Pradesh known by the name of U.P. Government Servant Seniority Rules, 1991. In the Rules of 1991, Rule 6 deals with seniority which is q