Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. M. Tariq Mughal
For the Respondents: Mr. Sudesh Magotra, AAG

Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

1. The petitioners, who were engaged as casual laborers in 1985-1986 and later regularized as Junior Mali in 1994, contend that they possess long service, higher qualifications, and have been discharging duties akin to higher posts, which entitles them to rightful seniority and consideration for promotion (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

2. The respondents argue that the regularization was in a personal, co-terminus capacity, and such re-designation does not automatically entitle the petitioners to inclusion in the cadre seniority list or to promotion, especially since the cadre strength is fixed at a specific number of posts (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

3. The court recognizes that once employees are regularized and have been performing their duties, their claim to seniority should be based on their date of regularization and appointment, not on administrative labels or temporary re-designations (!) (!) (!) .

4. Continued officiation and long service in higher duties can entitle employees to consideration for promotion, and denial of such consideration without proper justification is deemed unfair (!) (!) .

5. The procedural fairness is compromised when objections or representations against seniority lists are not effectively considered, rendering the list arbitrary and unlawful (!) (!) .

6. The court emphasizes that administrative convenience cannot override the rights accrued through regularization and long service, and any administrative order made after regularization cannot nullify those rights unless explicitly authorized (!) (!) .

7. The court's decision is to quash the impugned seniority list to the extent that it places juniors above the petitioners contrary to their appointment and qualification dates (!) .

8. A new seniority list must be prepared based on the actual dates of regularization, appointment, and relevant qualifications, ensuring the petitioners are placed appropriately (!) .

9. The respondents are directed to consider the petitioners for promotion through a properly convened DPC, with reasons recorded for each decision, and to create supernumerary posts if necessary to ensure their rightful seniority (!) (!) .

10. Any consequential service benefits arising from the corrected seniority and promotion decisions should be released in accordance with applicable rules, including any due financial benefits (!) .

11. The court's order is limited to the correction of the seniority list and does not involve costs (!) .

These points collectively highlight the importance of adhering to principles of fairness, transparency, and legal regularity in seniority and promotion matters, especially when employees have long service and have been regularlyized.