JUDGMENT :

Ramesh Ranganathan, J.

These Writ Petition are listed before us pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court dated 27.01.2020, in Civil Appeal No.728, 729 and 730 of 2020 preferred by the State of Uttarakhand. While Civil Appeal No.728 of 2020 was preferred against the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (S/B) No.676 of 2018 dated 17.05.2019, Civil Appeal No.729 of 2020 was preferred against the order passed in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 297 of 2017 dated 24.09.2018, and Civil Appeal No.730 of 2020 was preferred against the order passed in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 326 of 2017 dated 24.09.2018.

2. In its order dated 27.01.2020, the Supreme Court observed that the crucial aspect raised by the State of Uttarakhand was whether the scenario in question was covered by Rule 6 or Rule 8 of the UTTARANCHAL GOVERNMENT SERVANTS SENIORITY RULES , 2002; this question was not examined in either of the petitions; and, while it was the case of the State Government that the recruitment in question was covered by Rule 8 and not by Rule 6, the private respondent sought to contend to the contrary. While making it clear that they were not commenting on the merits or de-merits of the contention, the Supreme Court opined that it wished to have the benefit of the order of the High Court on this question which had not been examined in either of the appeals. In view thereof, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the orders under appeal were set-aside, and the matter was remanded to this High Court for examination on the merits of the aforesaid aspect which was held crucial to the result of the appeals.

3. Learned counsel, appearing for all the parties on either side, are in agreement that it would suffice to refer to the parties to these proceedings as they are arrayed in Writ Petition (S/B) No.297 of 2017. It is useful to note the relevant facts preceding the order of the Supreme Court whereby all the three Writ Petitions were remanded to this Court.

4. The selection process, for appointment to the posts of Sales Tax Officer Grade-II, was undertaken in the year 1990. It is the case of the fifth respondent (claim petitioner before the Tribunal) that, though he stood above respondent nos.6 to 11 in the merit list prepared by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, respondent nos.6 to 11 were offered appointment as Sales Tax Officers Grade-II in the months of March/April, 1994, and he was offered appointment to the said post more than two years thereafter on 09.05.1996; he was issued a letter of appointment on 20.07.1996, and joined the post of Sales Tax Officer Grade-II on 01.08.1996; in the seniority list of Sales Tax Officers Grade-II, published on 26.12.2001, he was shown above respondent nos.6 to 11; since respondent nos.6, 7, 9, 10 and 11 were appointed as Sales Tax Officers Grade-II in March-April, 1994, they were promoted, on completion of seven years of service, to the post of Assistant Commissioner on 20.01.2003; respondent no.8 was, however, not considered fo