( 1. ) THIS is a petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writ of certiorari to quash order dated 10-12-1981 (Ann.-4), whereby the appointment of respondent No. 3 on the post of Assistant Engineer was regularised with effect from 10-12-1963 and for quashing his promotion to the post of executive Engineer in December, 1981. The petitioner also prays for a writ of mandamus commanding respondent No. 1 to promote him to the post of Executive engineer from the date respondent No. 3 was promoted giving him seniority over respondent No. 3 and other consequential benefits.

( 2. ) THE, petitioner was first appointed as Overseer in the Public Works department (hereinafter in short the PWD) on 14-9-1950 while respondent No. 3 was appointed to the same post on 16-9-1950. The respondent No. 3 was thus junior to him on the said post On 10-12-1963, respondent No. 3 was allowed to hold temporarily charge of a Sub-Division in the leave vacancy of an Assistant Engineer on ad hoc basis. The petitioner, though senior, was not considered for the said charge and therefore he submitted a representation (Document No. 1) on 18-1-1964. The respondent No. 3 was reverted to the post of Overseer in or about 1964.

( 3. ) IN June 1971, the Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter in short the DPC) considered the petitioner and respondent No. 3 besides others and recommended both for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. In the seniority list of Assistant Engineers as on 1-4-1977 (Document No. 2), the petitioners name is at serial no. 159 while respondent No. 3 is at 160. Yet, in another Gradation List of Assistant engineers as on 1-4-1982 (Document No. 10), the petitioners name is at serial No. 134 while respondent No. 3 is at 135. This list revealed that while the petitioners date of promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer is shown as on 17-8-1971, the respondent no. 3s promotion to the same post is shown to be on 7-4-1971.

( 4. ) ON 11th and 12 March, 1980, the DPC met to consider cases of promotion from the post of Assistant Engineer to the post of Executive Engineer. The DPC prepared a list of suitable candidates and in that list the petitioners name was placed at serial No. 55 while the name of respondent No. 3 was at serial No. 56. The DPC recommended that the promotions for the posts of Executive Engineers be made in the order of seniority only as no candidate, was found to be extraordinary meritorious. The minutes of DPC is document No. 3. Contrary to the recommendations of the DPC and without obtaining concurrence of Public Sen/ice Commission (hereinafter in short psc), the State government superseded the petitioner and promoted respondent No. 3 alone to the post of Executive Engineer in December, 1981. The State Government also issued an order dated 24-10-1981 (Document No. 4) regularising the promotion of respondent no. 3 to the post of Assistant Engineer w. e. f. 10-12-1963.

( 5. ) THE petitioner made representations (Documents Nos. 5 to 8) against his supersession and regularising the promotion of respondent No. 3 with retrospective effect i. e. from 10-12-1963 and his promotion to the post of Executive Engineer. Since no action was taken, the petitioner filed this petition on 28-3-1983. The respondents nos. 1 and 2 filed their return opposing the petition. They admitted that the petitioner was senior to the respondent No. 3 not only as Overseer but also Assistant Engineer as indicated in the Gradation Lists (Documents Nos. 2 and 10), the DPC in its meeting dated 11-3-1980 prepared a list of suitable candidates in which the petitioners name is at serial No. 55 and of respondent No. 3 at 56, and recommended that the promotions to the post of Executive Engineer be made in the order of seniority only. While admitting the respondent No. 3 was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer, in December 1981, they submitted that the petitioner could not be promoted since his C. Rs. for two years we