JUDGMENT 1. - Shorn of all detail, the point in controversy in this case is a limited one. "The Director of Agriculture, Rajasthan issued, by his order dated 22-4-71, a final list of common interlaced seniority of the Subordinate Agriculture Service Extension as it stood on 1-1-71. According to this final Seniority list, the petitioner Shri K.S. Sisodia was placed at No. 19 while the respondents viz Sarva Shri V.N Saxena, B.M. Raina and G.S. Sonkhi a were placed respectively at Nos. 45, 50 & 51. It appears that the respondents were allowed to file some sort of representations even against this final seniority list and the Govt. by its orders dated 30-6-71, 2-7-71 and 7-7-71 amended the seniority list and placed all the three of them between No. 9 and No.10. Thus they became far more senior to the Petitioner. The Petitioner's grievance is that he was not heard when the aforesaid orders were made by the State Government. 2. In the order dated 30.6.71 relating to Shri V.N. Saxena, the reason given for upward revision of his seniority was that "he shall be assigned seniority above those who were in the grade of Rs. 110-225 only on 8-11-56 and below those who were substantive in the grade of Rs. 150-300 on this date". 3. In the order dated 2-7-71 relating to Shri B.M. Raina, the reason given for upward seniority was that "he is assigned seniority above those who were in the grade of Rs. 110-225 as on 2-1-58 and below those who were substantive in the grade of Rs. 150 300 on that date.' 4. In the order dated 7-7-71 relating to Shri G.S. Sonlchiya the reason for giving him seniority was that "he may be assigned seniority above those who, at the time of his selection by the RPSC, were substantive in the grade of Rs. 110-225 and below there were substantive in grade of Rs. 150-390 on that date." But, no date was mentioned. 5. The case of the petitioner in short is that he was a substantive Farm Manager on 9-2-1951 in the grade of Rs. 100-200. This grade was revised to Rs. 110-225 w.e.f. 1-3-56. It is farther the case of the petitioner that after holding several appointments in between, he was appointed as an Officiating District Agriculture Officer by the Director of Agriculture by his order dated 30-10-56 at Udaipur. 100-200. This grade was revised to Rs. 110-225 w.e.f. 1-3-56. It is farther the case of the petitioner that after holding several appointments in between, he was appointed as an Officiating District Agriculture Officer by the Director of Agriculture by his order dated 30-10-56 at Udaipur. It appears that the Petitioner took charge as District Agriculture Officer, Udaipur on 6-11-56. The grade on that date of the Dist. Agriculture Officer was Rs. 200/- 600/-. The pray slip issued by the Accountant General on 4-6-1962 shows that the Petitioner was drawing Rs. 230/- as officiating pay on 6-11-56 as District Agriculture Officer. The Petitioner continued in that capacity until he was promoted as an Assistant Director on 5-10-60. 6. Now, it is clear that on 8-11-56 the crucial date given in the order dated 30-6-71 Annexure 7 relating to Shri V.N. Saxena, the Petitioner was not in the grade of Rs. 1 10-225 but was Officiating District Agriculture Officer in the grade of Rs. 200-600/-. Shri Saxena cannot therefore be placed above the Petitioner. 7. Similarly, on the date 2-1-58 shown in Annexure 8 dated 2-7-71 relating to `Shri B.M. Raina, the Petitioner was not in the grade of Rs. 110-225 but was in the grade of Rs. 200-600/-. Shri Raina cannot therefore, be placed above the petitioner. 8. In Annexure 9 order dated 7-7-71 relating to Shri Sonkhiya no date has been mentioned. However, the petitioner was holding the post of Substantive. Farm Manager in the grade of Rs. 110-225 w.e.f. 1-3-56 which was revised to Rs. 150-300 w.e.f. 1-6-58. Thus the Petitioner was holding a substantive appointment in the grade of Rs. 150-300 on 1-6-58 Shri Sonkhiya, therefore, has to be placed below and not above the Petitioner. 9. The Petitioner has prayed that the orders revising the seniority of the respondent Nos. 3-5 viz. Sarva Shri V.N. Saxena, B.M. Raina and G.S. Sonkhiya should be revised so as to place them below the Petitioner. He further prays the seniority lists dated 11-9-74 and 27-9-74 relating to Group B and Group C posts of section 2 Extension Junior & Senior posts be directed to be revised accordingly and the order of the State Government dated 4-1-75 should also be modified according so as to place the respondents Saxena and Sonkhiya below the petitioner. 10. I have heard arguments and seen the record of the case. 10. I have heard arguments and seen the record of the case. The Contention of the State Government and respondents is that the Petitioner was never posted as District Agriculture Officer. It was only by mis-conception that it was mentioned in the order that the Petitioner was officiating while in, fact he was never officiating as District Agriculture Officer and there is no order to that effect appointing him as District Agriculture Officer. He was posted for a short duration as District Agriculture Officer as from 6-11-56. He was not appointed to that post. The Petitioner began performing the duties of the District Agriculture Officer from 6-11-56 on an ad-hoc basis temporarily to perform such duties. This averment of the State Government and also of the other respondents clearly overlooks the order of the Director of Agriculture dated 30-10-56 and the Pay Slip issued by the Accountant General (though as late as 4-6-62). The averments are, therefore against the record. It is not necessary to go into the details of the service-records of the parties. The Petitioner's case is covered by the very reasons which have been given in the order is relating to the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5. The case of the respondents stands hoisted with their own petard. 11. Moreover, the impugned orders which affect the Petitioner adversely were made without hearing him and thus in violation of the principles of natural justice. No one has controverted this allegation. 12. The case involves a clear breach of seniority rules as laid down by the State Government under the Rajasthan Subordinate Service Recruitment & Other Service Conditions Rules, 1960 which admittedly applied to the case of the parties and this has resulted in an illegality and consequent substantive failure of justice. The Petitioner has also suffered an injury of substantial nature because the State Government working on the basis of impugned seniority has given promotions to the respondents and made them senior to the Petitioner. There is no other remedy for the redress of the aforesaid injury provided by or under any other law for the time being in force. The Petitioner succeeds. 13. There is no other remedy for the redress of the aforesaid injury provided by or under any other law for the time being in force. The Petitioner succeeds. 13. I, therefore, accept this petition and direct as follows : (1) The respondents Sarva Shri V.N. Saxena, B.M. Raina and G.S. Sonkhiya shall be placed below and not above the Petitioner and the impugned orders dated 30-6-71, 2-7-71 shall to that extent stand modified. (2) The Petitioner shall be entitled to all such reliefs as flow to him under the relevant rules as a consequence of the aforesaid direction, (3) There shall be no order as to costs. Writ accepted. *******