JUDGMENT : J.C. Shah, J. 1. On December 27, 1948, the appellant was admitted as District Agricultural Officer in Class II in the Department of Agriculture, Himachal Pradesh Civil Service. On August 12, 1957, the appellant was promoted to officiate in Class I (Junior Grade) and was posted as Potato Development Officer at Simla. He joined duty on August 31, 1957. The appellant was due to cross the efficiency bar an June 27, 1963. An order was passed on June 10, 1965 refusing to allow the appellant to cross the efficiency bar. 2. The appellant presented a petition before the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh, for the issue of a writ of certiorari, mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction after calling for the records and by quashing the impugned orders. The petition is a rambling document, defective in several important particulars. It does not even indicate precisely the orders which the appellant is challenging. 3. In the petition before the Judicial Commissioner many contentions were raised, but only the following contentions need be set out for the purpose of this appeal :- 1. that the order preventing the appellant from crossing the efficiency bar was contrary to the rules governing the Service and was made 'out of personal jealousies and prejudices by the authorities;' 2. that the appellant was reduced in the list of seniority in Class I (Junior) from No. 5 in 1961 to No. 7 in 1962. The "action was mala fide and illegal"; 3. that one Prem Sagar, the fourth respondent in this appeal, was placed in the list of seniority above the appellant even though Prem Sagar was not entitled to be so placed according to the rules; and 4. that the adverse reports against the appellant were not communicated to him but were acted upon when he was denied the privilege of crossing the efficiency bar. These contentions were negatived by the Judicial Commissioner. In this appeal, counsel for the appellant has urged the same contentions. 4. The Secretary (Agriculture) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, addressed a letter to the appellant on June 10, 1965, informing him that since he the appellant was not amenable to service discipline, he could not be allowed to cross the efficiency bar in the scale of Rs. 350-870 which had fallen due on June 27, 1963. 4. The Secretary (Agriculture) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, addressed a letter to the appellant on June 10, 1965, informing him that since he the appellant was not amenable to service discipline, he could not be allowed to cross the efficiency bar in the scale of Rs. 350-870 which had fallen due on June 27, 1963. Our attention has not been invited to any service rule governing the crossing of efficiency bar and requiring that an order in this behalf must precede the date on which the public servant is to cross the efficiency bar. In fairness to a public servant, it is true, the order preventing him from crossing the efficiency bar should be passed either before the appointed date, or shortly thereafter. It is unfortunate that the Government did not pass an order for nearly two years after the appointed date. The State of Himachal Pradesh has produced the relevant record in compliance with the order of the Judicial Commissioner dated March 30, 1966, and they have attempted to explain that the files relating to the appellant had been sent to the Development Minister and files were not returned by the Minister for a long time and on that account the appellant's case could not be considered. The explanation does not appeal to be satisfactory. But no effective relief at this date can be given to the appellant for failure to make an order immediately after June 27, 1963. Mr. Sachthey appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 has assured us that appropriate orders, after consideration of the record of the appellant, will be passed before October 31, 1957 in respect of the period after June 27, 1963. 5. The Lieutenant Governor had clearly stated in his order dated June 10, 1965 that if the appellant showed improvement in respect of the shortcomings adverted to, the question would be reconsidered. The authorities concerned, we trust, will consider the service record of the appellant as stated at the Bar by Mr. Sachthey in respect of the period after June 27, 1963 and pass appropriate orders. 6. The plea that the orders were made mala fide against the appellant is without substance. The authorities concerned, we trust, will consider the service record of the appellant as stated at the Bar by Mr. Sachthey in respect of the period after June 27, 1963 and pass appropriate orders. 6. The plea that the orders were made mala fide against the appellant is without substance. There is not even an averment to that effect in the petition filed by the appellant before the Judicial Commissioner, and counsel for the appellant was unable to give any particulars to support the plea of alleged mala fide conduct of the respondents. 7. It appears from Annexures 'C' and 'D' with the special leave petition before this Court, that whereas in the seniority list corrected upto April 1, 1961, the appellant was shown at No. 5, he was shown at No. 7 in Annexure 'D' in the list of seniority corrected upto April 1, 1962. But we are unable to investigate the question whether there has been infringement of the rules governing fixation of seniority, for a majority of those who were placed above the appellant in the seniority list were not impleaded in the petition before the Judicial Commissioner and are not before this Court. It is impossible to pass an order, assuming that the appellant is able to convince us that a breach of the rules was committed, altering the list of seniority, unless those who are likely to be affected thereby are before the Court and have an opportunity of replying to the case set up by the appellant. 8. But it was urged that Prem Sagar, the 4th respondent, was impleaded before the Judicial Commissioner and is also before this Court, and the seniority given to him in the list on certain special consideration is liable to be canvassed in this Court. The facts relating to the relative seniority between Prem Sagar and the appellant may first be set out. Prem Sagar was placed above the appellant in Class II in the list of seniority. That is not challenged. Prem Sagar was appointed in April, 1953 to the post of Principal, Extension Training Centre, Mashobra, which post was a Class I post; vide Office order No. D-97/21/53 dated April 16, 1953. The appellant was appointed Potato Development Officer, which is also a Class I post, by order dated August 12, 1957. That is not challenged. Prem Sagar was appointed in April, 1953 to the post of Principal, Extension Training Centre, Mashobra, which post was a Class I post; vide Office order No. D-97/21/53 dated April 16, 1953. The appellant was appointed Potato Development Officer, which is also a Class I post, by order dated August 12, 1957. Prem Sagar was appointed Deputy Director, Agriculture, which is a Class I post, on August 28, 1957, but he could not immediately be relieved of the duties of the post of Principal, Extension Training Centre. On September 16, 1957, Prem Sagar joined duty in the post of Deputy Director. In the meanwhile, the appellant had joined duty as Potato Development Officer on August 31, 1957. The Government of Himachal Pradesh passed an order giving to Prem Sagar officiating promotion from August 28, 1957, the date on which the order of posting was passed, and on that account Prem Sagar was placed in the list of seniority above the appellant. 9. The appellant contends that if the promotion of Prem Sagar was to operate as from the date on which the order of posting was passed, he, the appellant should also have been similarly treated and his promotion should have been dated as from August 12, 1957. It is true that the reference to F.R. 30 in the order giving 'proforma officiating promotion' to Prem Sagar from August 28, 1957 is misleading, because that rule has apparently no bearing on the matter of fixation of seniority among the promotees inter. But on that ground the seniority given to Prem Sagar is also not liable to be set aside. The appellant was placed below Prem Sagar commenced holding a Class I post more than four years before the date on which the appellant was appointed to a Class I post. In the absence of any rule which enables a person like the appellant to claim seniority over another public servant who was already officiating in Class I Post, the appellant's aim of seniority over Prem Sagar must fail. 10. There is no substance in the contention that the adverse reports were not communicated to the appellant. It appears from the record that not only were those reports communicated to the appellant, but he had made representations to the authorities about those adverse reports against him. 10. There is no substance in the contention that the adverse reports were not communicated to the appellant. It appears from the record that not only were those reports communicated to the appellant, but he had made representations to the authorities about those adverse reports against him. We do not think that there is any substance in the ground raised in this appeal. 11. The appeal fails and is dismissed. We trust that the authorities will consider the question about crossing of the efficiency bar by the appellant in the light of his service record and with sympathy. There will be no order as to costs of this appeal. Appeal dismissed.