JUDGMENT 1. - By this petition the petitioner challenges the impugned seniority list issued on 1.4.70 of Asstt. Engineers of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board respondent No. 1 by which respondents 2 and 3 have been shown senior to him. 2. The petitioner was appointed by an appointment order of 30.1.59. The order of appointment as a Junior Engineer in the case of respondents 2 and is 3.12.58 and he joined on 4.12.58. In the case of respondent 3 the order of appointment as a Junior Engineer is 11.2.59 and he joined on 16.2.59. 3. The Board by its resolution No. 40 decided that the Rajasthan Civil Service Rules will be applicable to its employees. it is not disputed that the Rajasthan Service of Engineer (Electrical and Mechanical Branch) Rules, 1954 (hereinafter to be called "the Rules") are applicable in the Board, nor is it disputed that the conditions of the service of petitioner and respondents 2 & 3 is governed by the said Rules. Rule 24 provides for a procedure for selection for recruitment by promotion. It lays down that as soon as it is decided that a certain number of vacancies in the service will be filled by promotion the Chief Engineer shall prepare a list of all Engineering Subordinates eligible for promotion and shall forward it to the Board. A Committee consisting of a Chairman of the Board and a member nominated by him and other officers is to interview such candidates and select the candidates equal to the number of vacancies likely to be filled for promotion and shall arrange their names in the order of seniority. The list prepared by the Committee are to be forwarded to the Board and the final selection is to be made by the Board and a list of candidates considered suitable for promotion shall be arranged in order of their seniority as Engineering Subordinates. it may be mentioned that Engineering Subordinates covers Junior Engineers. 4. It appears that some vacancies arose for the posts of Assistant Engineers (next promotion from Junior Engineer) and the Chief Engineer directed the respondent 2 to work against the said post with effect from 7.8.64 and respondent 6 with effect from 23.12.64 and the petitioner with effect from 20.2.65. it may be mentioned that Engineering Subordinates covers Junior Engineers. 4. It appears that some vacancies arose for the posts of Assistant Engineers (next promotion from Junior Engineer) and the Chief Engineer directed the respondent 2 to work against the said post with effect from 7.8.64 and respondent 6 with effect from 23.12.64 and the petitioner with effect from 20.2.65. Thereafter the respondent Board passed an order on 23.2.65 promoting the petitioner and respondent 2 & 3 as officiating Assistant Engineers on a purely temporary basis for a period of 4 months with effect from the dates they took over the charge of the post of Assistant Engineers. They were also allowed to draw the salary of the Assistant Engineers post from the dates they were working as Asstt. Engineer. As the posts of Assistant Engineer is to be filled by promotion as provided in Part V of the Rules the names of the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 and others were sent out for consideration before the Selection Committee. The said Committee held its meeting on 24.8.66 Amongst the members who were present at that meeting were Chairman, the Technical Member, another member and the the Chief Engineer of the Board. The Committee considered as per its minutes of the said date a number of candidates who were called for interview for the purpose of appointments as Assistant Engineers. Out of the 16 candidates that it considered with regard to their annual confidential reports and other service records it approved the appointment of 5 officers including the petitioner. With regard to 6 officers including respondent No. 3 it was decided that they may be a lowed to continue for six months more and be given an opportunity to improve but they shall again be screened after six months and if they do not come upto the standard they will be reverted. With regard to 4 other officers including respondent 2 it was decided that they were not found suitable for the post of Assistant Engineers and the Committee thereupon directed that they should be reverted to the post of Junior Engineers but in order to avoid audit objection it was desired that the Board may be requested to approve the continuance of these officers as Assistant Engineers till the date of issue of their reversion order. In consequence of this decision by the Selection Committee an order dated 26.8.66 was issued in which the petitioner's same was approved for appointment as Assistant Engineer. Respondent 3 was allowed to continue for six months and was to be given another opportunity after six months while respondent 2 having been found not suitable for the post of Assistant Engineer was ordered to be reverted. As these orders of appointment of petitioner and others were subject to notification by the Board, they were placed for consideration before the Board in its last meeting and it ratified the proceedings of the Selection Committee and the order dated 26.8.66. 5. It appears however that respondent No. 2 and others approached the Board with a request that he may be allowed to continue as Assistant Engineers. The Board accordingly on 21.9.66 passed an order in modification of its earlier order dated 26.8.66 and directed that the Assistant Engineer may be allowed to continue as Assistant Engineers for a further period of six months and that after the expiry of the said period they will have to appear before the Selection Committee and no special consideration will be shown to them for any representation if they failed and will be required to reversion. In course of time another Selection Committee was constituted in the month of March, 1967 and the same by its order dated 1.4.67 approved the names of certain officers including that of respondents 2 and 3. A provisional seniority list was issued by the Board on 19.9.68 wherein the petitioner was shown at serial No. 6 while respondents 2 and 3 were shown at serial No. 4 and 5. The petitioner represented against that seniority list but the same was rejected and the impugned final seniority list was issued on 1.9.70 wherein petitioner is shown junior to respondents 2 and 3. it is against this seniority list that the petitioner has filed the present petition in this Court. 6. Rules 28 of the Rules provides that seniority in each grade of the Service shall be determined by the date of the order of appointment to the grade concerned. The case of the petitioner as put forth by Mr. it is against this seniority list that the petitioner has filed the present petition in this Court. 6. Rules 28 of the Rules provides that seniority in each grade of the Service shall be determined by the date of the order of appointment to the grade concerned. The case of the petitioner as put forth by Mr. Mridul learned counsel for the petitioner is that as the petitioner was selected by the Selection Committee as per its order of 28.8.66 and the Board also ratified the same by October, 1968 the petitioner must rank senior to respondents 2 & 3 who were selected by the Selection Committee by its order of 1st April, 1967. A plain reading of Rule 28 does support this submission of Mr. Mridul. The respondents however have taken the plea which was put forth in the arguments by Mr. Gupta appearing for the Board and by Mr. Kasliwal for respondents 2 & that the date of appointment of the petitioner and respondents cannot be determined by the selection made by the Selection Committee. According to this argument the Committee was only in nature of a screening committee which was to put its stamp of approval on the appointments made earlier by the Chief Engineer and therefore irrespective of the dates when Screening Committee approves those appointment they will all be deemed to relate back to the date of the Chief Engineer's order when the petitioner and respondents 2 & 3 were asked to work as Assistant Engineers. And as admittedly respondents 2 & 3 were asked to work as Assistant Engineers on a date earlier to that of the petitioner, the former would rank senior. It is relevant to note that it is not disputed even in the return that Rule 28 does govern the question of seniority. However it is sought to be maintained that in the peculiar circumstances of this case the dates of the petitioner and other respondents for the purpose of appointment as Assistant Engineer should be taken to be the date when they were asked to work against the post of Assistant Engineer by the Chief Engineer. However it is sought to be maintained that in the peculiar circumstances of this case the dates of the petitioner and other respondents for the purpose of appointment as Assistant Engineer should be taken to be the date when they were asked to work against the post of Assistant Engineer by the Chief Engineer. I can see no warrant either in principle or in the rules for giving such a twist to the interpretation of rule 28 Part V of the Rules governing the procedure for recruitment by promotion undoubtedly covers the promotion of Engineering Subordinates to the next grade which is the Assistant Engineer's grade. Rules mandatory require a Selection Committee to consider the case of the candidates and prepare a list of suitable candidates and the final selection is to be made by the Board but only out of the list submitted by the Committee. The date of order of appointment to the grade is to determine seniority in each grade as per Mr. Gupta, in justification of Board's action seeks to invoke rule 28(4) which says that the seniority inter-se of persons appointed by promotion to a particular class of post on the same date shall be the same as in the next below grade, except in cases of continued officiation on higher post when it shall be in accordance with the length of such continued officiation provided that such officiation was not adhoc or fortuitous. It is relevant to note that rule 28(4) provides for a weight age in seniority to be given only in two cases namely, when the appointment is on the same date in which case the seniority in the next below grade determines the seniority or in case the appointment is on the same date but a junior has officiated for longer period on a higher post, then he may be given seniority in accordance with the length of such confirmed officiation, irrespective of the fact that he is junior in the next below grade to another person appointed on the same date. What is important to note is that Rule 28(4) will only apply if all these persons are appointed by promotion to the posts on the same date. What is important to note is that Rule 28(4) will only apply if all these persons are appointed by promotion to the posts on the same date. Now as rule 24 mandatorily provides that selection by promotion can only be made after the selection had been made by the Committee of suitable candidates it necessarily follows that the selections made by an earlier Selection Committee would rant senior to those who are selected by a subsequent Selection Committee. It would be strange logic if a person like the petitioner who was approved and found suitable by the Selection Committee at its meeting held on 24.8.66 was to rank junior to respondents 2 and 3 who were selected in a subsequent Selection Committee which met on 1.4.67. It would be illegal if the petitioner who was found suitable by the Selection Committee on 24.8.66 should rank junior to respondent no. 2 when this very Committee found him not suitable, and to respondent no. 3 who was also not selected but was to be given another opportunity after 6 months. If the argument of the respondent Mr. Gupta was to be accepted the whole purpose of the Selection Committee would be an exercise in futility because then even if a person is found not suitable for years together but is ultimately found suitable, he would rant senior to a person who had been promoted as Assistant Engineer years before only on account of his seniority in the next below grade. That surely could not be the intention of the Rules as it would make the Rules not only inequitable but completely subversive of the purpose they are supposed to achieve. Of course in the return by the Board an effort has been made to whittle down the significance of the selection by the Selection Committee and it has been suggested that this Committee is merely a screening committee for the purpose of approving the persons who had already been promoted as Assistant Engineers earlier by the Chief Engineer.I may note that in the orders of 26.8.66 and even of 1.4.67 Committee is called the Selection Committee. The effort to reduce the Selection Committee into a Screening Committee with performing same function outside the rules has not been sought to be supported by making a reference to any other rules or even to any resolution of the Board laying down principles in connection with that. In the writ petition, it had been pointed out that the practice in the Board has been that the order of preference recommended by the Selection Committee has been approved by the Board. A reference had been made to the Board's order dated 29.1.65 whereupon approving the recommendation of the Selection Committee for promotion of Junior Engineer to the posts of Assistant Engineers, if had directed that seniority of these officers is as determined by the order of preference is commended by the Selection Committee. In the reply filed by the respondent Board the validity of the said selection of 29.1.66 has been seriously challenged by suggesting that the Screening Committee wrongly made the recommendations and which were also unfortunately inadvertently approved by the Board. It is litter curious and frankly understandable how the Board, in order to justify the present illegal action has gone to the extent of suggesting that its earlier order dated 29.1.65 approving seniority was an invalid decision; more so one is amazed at this reply, when it has not even remotely been suggested that the decision of 29.1.65 was reviewed or set aside later by the Board. I pointedly asked Mr. Gupta as to whether that decision of 29.1.65 had been reviewed by the Board and I was told that according to his instructions that decision has not been reviewed. Be that as it may, as the Rules provide for the appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer only after a candidate is found suitable by the Selection Committee, and the seniority is to be determined by the date of appointment. It is thus impossible to accept the contention of Mr. Gupta that even when respondents 2 and 3 were selected by a later Selection Committee on 1.4.67 they must rank senior to the petitioner who was selected by the Selection Committee on 24.8.66 only on the basis of their seniority in the next below grade i.e. of Junior Engineers. It is thus impossible to accept the contention of Mr. Gupta that even when respondents 2 and 3 were selected by a later Selection Committee on 1.4.67 they must rank senior to the petitioner who was selected by the Selection Committee on 24.8.66 only on the basis of their seniority in the next below grade i.e. of Junior Engineers. In my view there is not question of comparison or inter-se seniority between a person selected in an earlier Selection Committee with a person selected by a subsequent Selection Committee because the case of appointment must be taken to the date of appointment with reference to the particular Selection Committee which made the selection, because it is a condition precedent to appointment that a candidate must be found suitable by the Selection Committee. As undoubtedly the petitioner was selected at an earlier Selection Committee held on 24.8.66 as against respondents 2 and 3 who were selected by a subsequent Selection Committee held on 1.4.67 the petitioner is entitled to claim his seniority above respondents 2 and 3. 7. Mr. Mridul had also raised an alternative argument with regard to respondent 3. He had sought to maintain that the date of appointment as a Junior Engineer of the petitioner was 30.1.59 while that of respondent 3 was 11.2.59 and it was not understandable why respondent 3 should have been placed senior. Mr. Gupta appearing for the Board and Mr. Kasliwal appearing for respondent 3 had however sought to justify this by pointing out that respondent 3 had joined on 16.2.59 as Junior Engineer whereas the petitioner had joined on 23.2.59. I however do not find any rule which gives seniority by the mere fact of joining earlier if the date of appointment of two officers is the same. Another reason mentioned by the counsel for the respondents for giving seniority to respondent 3 was stated with reference to Rule 28 (4), to be that he had started working against the post of Assistant Engineer with effect from 23.12.64. Where as the petitioner had started working from 20.2.65. This argument however can only prevail if it is accepted that the petitioner and respondent 3 were appointed on the same date which argument. I have already repelled. There is also the further limitation before Rule 28(4) can apply merely that officiation was not ad hoc or fortuitous. Where as the petitioner had started working from 20.2.65. This argument however can only prevail if it is accepted that the petitioner and respondent 3 were appointed on the same date which argument. I have already repelled. There is also the further limitation before Rule 28(4) can apply merely that officiation was not ad hoc or fortuitous. Now the officiating promotion which was given to the respondents 2 and 3 had also been given to the petitioner by the order of 23.2.65 which says that they are promoted as officiating Assistant Engineers on a purely temporary basis. From the material on record it is not possible to say whether the officiating promotions were ad hoc or fortuitous or not and I would not like therefore to give any final decision with regard to this point. More so because I have already held that on the interpretation of rule 28 read with rule 24 the petitioner is titled to claim seniority over respondents 2 and 3. 8. The result is that I would allow the petition and issue a mandamus directing the respondent Board to fix seniority of petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 in accordance with rules and in the light of the observations made in this judgement. The petitioner will have his costs against respondent no. 1 Board. *******