( 1. ) THE present petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order Annexure P-10 dated 21. 3. 2003 whereby the services rendered by the respondent No. 3 in his parent department as Research Officer have been counted for the purposes of reckoning seniority to respondent No. 3 after his absorption on the post of Assistant Director with the borrowing department.

( 2. ) THE facts leading to the present petition are that the petitioner No. l was working with the Panchayat and Social Welfare Department. He was sent on deputation with the respondents. The petitioner No. 1 was given ad-hoc promotion in his parent department on 24. 4. 1985 as a Leprosy Welfare Officer. Subsequently, by an order dated 15. 8. 1986 when the new Directorate i. e. the Woman and Child development was opened the petitioner No. 1 was sent on deputation. At that time the petitioner was holding the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000.

( 3. ) SO far as the petitioner No. 2 is concerned, initially he was appointed in the tribal Welfare Department on 19. 3. 1979. By an order dated 15. 8. 1986 the petitioner No. 2 was transferred on deputation to the Woman and Child Development department. He was promoted in the parent department as Assistant Research officer on 24. 1. 1994 in the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000. The petitioner No. 2 was also sent on deputation in the Directorate of Woman and Child Development.

( 4. ) THE petitioner No. 3 was directly recruited on the post of Assistant Director in the Woman and Child Development Department w. e. f. 23. 2. 1995 and he was promoted on the post of Joint Director in the pay scale of Rs. 12000-16500.

( 5. ) SO far as the respondent No. 3 is concerned, he was initially employed with the Manpower and Planning Department and he was also sent on deputation. He came on deputation with the Woman and Child Development Department on 10th september, 1997 and at this time he was also in the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000.

( 6. ) THERE is no dispute between the parties that all the petitioners and the respondent no. 3 have been absorbed as Assistant Director with the respondents. So far as the petitioner No. 2 is concerned, his absorption was cancelled, therefore, he filed a writ petition before this Court, which was tegistered as W. P. No. 3863/2006 (S) (Harish chandra Agrawal Vs. State of M. P. and others ). This Court allowed the said writ petition by passing an order on 18. 5. 2007 whereby the order of cancelling absorption of petitioner No. 2 was set aside. The order dated 18. 5. 2007 passed by this Court has also been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 1107/2007 (State ofm. P. and Anr Vs. Harish Chandra Agrawal) decided on 15. 2. 2008.

( 7. ) A chart showing the position before the absorption of the petitioners and respondent No. 3 as well as position after their absorption is as under:-

( 8. ) THE respondent No. 3 submitted a representation whereby he submitted that after absorption his seniority be counted by taking into account the previous services rendered by him in his parent department. The said representation was accepted by the respondents and the request of respondent No. 3 was acceded. Consequently, the order dated 21. 3. 2003 (Annexure P-10) was passed whereby the seniority was given to the respondent No. 3 from 21. 6. 1993 i. e. the service rendered by the respondent No. 3 in his parent department w. e. f. 21. 6. 1993 has been taken into account for the purposes of reckoning seniority to him in the borrowing department where he is also absorbed. The respondents have also passed a consequential order, which is Annexure P-11 to the petition, whereby seniority of the petitioners has been re-fixed. The petitioners being aggrieved have filed the present petition to challenge the order Annexure P-l0 and so also the consequential order annexure P-11.

( 9. ) BEFORE considering the rival contentions of the parties it would be appropriate to refer here to the concerning Rule for reckoning the senior