The main legal point established in the judgment is that the service rendered by an employee in a higher rank should be considered for seniority and promotion, and the employer has an obligation to reconsider the employee's allocation if found fit for promotion to a higher post.

S.N. Aggarwal, J.

1. This appeal has a chequered history. Respondent No. 1 is the only contesting Respondent in this appeal. He alongwith Respondent No. 2 was appointed in the services of State of Madhya Pradesh as Lower Division Clerk on 18/6/1987. The ranking of Respondent No. 1 in the merit list of LD Cs was higher to Respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 1 was at serial number 5 and Respondent No. 2 was at serial number 10 in the select list of LD Cs, pursuant to which, they were appointed vide order dated 18/6/1987. In due course of time, both Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 were promoted as Assistant Grade II (UDC) vide order dated 18/3/1992. Thereafter, Respondent No. 1 was promoted as Assistant Inspector (Handloom) on ad hoc basis vide order dated 6/4/1995 and shortly thereafter, Respondent No. 2 was promoted as Accountant on 15/11/1996. The pay-scale of the post of Assistant Inspector (Handloom) was lower than the pay-scale attached to the post of Assistant Grade II (UDC). Respondent No. 1 was not willing to work on the post of Assistant Inspector (Handloom) to which he was promoted on ad hoc basis and, therefore, he wrote to the Appellants for his reversion to the post of Assistant Grade II (UDC) and consequently on his said request, he was reverted by the Appellant to the post of Assistant Grade II (UDC) vide order dated 14/7/1998. While reverting him to the post of Assistant Grade II (UDC), it was mentioned that the period of service rendered by him as Assistant Inspector (Handloom) shall not be counted for reckoning his seniority in the cadre of Assistant Grade II (UDC).

2. After Respondent No. l was reverted to the post of Assistant Grade II (UDC) vide order dated 14/7/1998, he was promoted to a higher post of Accountant with effect from 30/3/2000. Though Respondent No. 1 was admittedly senior in the cadre of Assistant Grade II (UDC), his promotion as Accountant came in place later in point of time in 2000 whereas Respondent No. 2 who was junior got promotion to the said post in the year 1996. This all happened because of promotion of Respondent No. 1 to the post of Assistant Inspector (Handloom) on ad hoc basis on 6/4/1995 from which post he was reverted back to the post of Assistant Grade II (UDC) vide order dated 14/7/1998. Since the promotion of Respondent No. 1 as Accountant came in place later than the promotion of Respondent No. 2, the seniority of Respondent No. 1 in the cadre of Accountants was shown at serial number 32 whereas the seniority of Respondent No. 2 who stood promoted as Accountant in the year 1996 was shown at serial number 25.

3. After Respondent No. 1 was promoted as Accountant on 30/3/2000, he was allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh on creation of a new State of Chhattisgarh with effect from 1st November, 2000. Respondent No. 1 was aggrieved by his allocation to the State of Chhattisgarh and also by his late promotion to the post of Accountant, therefore, he filed two separate applications before the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal (for brevity, "SAT") which were registered as O.A. No. 1218/02 and O.A. No. 289/02 respectively.

4. The Division Bench of SAT vide its order dated 5/10/2002 in O.A. No. 1218/02 dismissed the challenge of Respondent No. 1 made by him against his allocation to the State of Chhattisgarh. However, while dismissing O.A. No. 1218/02, the SAT took note of the pendency of the other application of Respondent No. 1 being O.A. No. 289/02 relating to his promotion to the post of Accountant and observed that in case Respondent No. 1 succeeds in O.A. No. 289/02, then the question of his allocation to State of Chhattisgarh will be re-opened. Aggrieved by the said order of the SAT dated 5/10/201, Respondent No. 1 preferred a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 2281/02 in which Division Bench of this Court vide its interim order dated 23/10/2002 stayed the allocation of Respondent No. 1 to the State of Chhattisgarh. However, subsequently, said writ petiti