JUDGMENT : P.K. Mohanti, J. - Petitioner, a clerk in the establishment of the District Judge, Balasore, challenges the orders of this Court dated 27.6.1968 and 3.3.1976 (Annexures 12 and 14) declaring opposite party Nos. 3 to 5 as seniors to him in the gradation list of senior upper division clerks in the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs. 125-190/-. 2. Petitioner entered service as a lower division clerk in the establishment of the District Magistrate of Balasore and was promoted to the post of junior upper division clerk on 1-4-1960. He was promoted to the next higher rank of senior upper division clerk by the District Magistrate's order dated 29-3-1961 (Annexure-7). On 1-4-1961, he was transferred and posted as Judicial Peskar of the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) under the scheme of separation of judiciary from the executive. Opposite party Nos. 3, 4 and 5 were recruited as lower division clerks in the establishment of the District Judge, Balasore. They were promoted to the rank of junior upper division clerks in January, 1959, and to the next higher rank of senior upper division clerks on 8-12-1961, 11-12-1961 and 15-12-1962 respectively. The petitioner and the opposite party Nos. 3 to 5 were confirmed as senior upper division clerks on 1-11-1968. In the gradation list finally published by the District Judge on 7-7-1966, the petitioner was shown as senior to O.P. Nos. 3 to 5. O.P. No. 3-Ramanarayan Pani preferred an appeal to this Court which was allowed by order dated 27-6-1966 (Annexure 12). Thereafter, O.P. Nos. 4 and 5-Harihar Panda and Kalikumar Panda-made representations to the District Judge on 19-3-1968 and 11-7-1968 respectively. The District Judge by his order dated 23-10-1971 (Annexure-13) rejected both the representations. Aggrieved by this order, Opposite party Nos. 4 and 5 preferred appeals to this Court which were allowed by order dated 3-3-1976 (Annexure-14) and the petitioner was declared as junior to both O.P. Nos. 4 and 5. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the orders in Annexures 12 and 14 as violative of the principles laid down in the Government Resolution dated 20-8-1964 (Annexure-16) and the High Court's letter No. 6420 dated 14/15th September, 1966 (Annexure 18) and claims seniority over opposite party Nos. 3 to 5. 3. The stand taken by the opposite parties is that O.P. Nos. 3 to 5. 3. The stand taken by the opposite parties is that O.P. Nos. 3 to 5 were appointed as lower division clerks and promoted as junior upper division clerks much earlier to the petitioner and and hence they are entitled to rank senior to him. 4. During the pendency of this writ petition, O.P. No. 5-Kalikumar Panda-retired from service on 1-1-1978. The question of fixing the seniority of the petitioner qua O.P. No. 5 does not therefore arise at present. O.P. No. 3-Ramanarayan Pani was promoted as Nazir in the scale of Rs. 155-200/- and further promoted to the next higher rank of Sheristadar of the District Judge in the scale of Rs. 300-395/- and he has been confirmed on that post with effect from 2-1-1974. He was declared senior to the petitioner by order dated 27-6-1968 and the writ petition was filed on 4-4-1977. It is well settled that jurisdiction of the High Court to issue writ under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and extra, ordinary. A writ petition under Article 226 must be made without any delay and if the petition is filed after inordinate and unreasonable delay, the Court should refuse to grant any relief to the writ petitioner. It is essential that any one who feels aggrieved with an administrative decision affecting one's seniority should act with due diligence and not sleep over the matter. The writ petition which was filed after a lapse of about nine years to contest the seniority by the petitioner vis-a-vis O.P. No. 3-Ramanarayan Pani must, therefore, be dismissed on account of laches and unreasonable delay. 5. The scheme for separation of judiciary from the executive was introduced in the district of Balasore with effect from 1-4-1960. After introduction of the scheme, some Class III and Class IV staff were transferred from the Collectorate to function under the judiciary. They were finally absorbed in the establishments of the District Judges in 1964 in accordance with the principles laid down by the Government of Orissa, Home Department Resolution No. 2276s dated the 20th August, 1964 (Annexure-16) which is reproduced below :- "No. 22762-SJE/3-3/64 HC. GOVERNMENT OF ORISSA HOME DEPARTMENT RESOLUTION Dated, Bhubaneswar, the 20th August, 1964. Sub : Absorption of Class III and IV staff in the establishment of District Judge under the separation scheme. GOVERNMENT OF ORISSA HOME DEPARTMENT RESOLUTION Dated, Bhubaneswar, the 20th August, 1964. Sub : Absorption of Class III and IV staff in the establishment of District Judge under the separation scheme. During the process of the separation of the Judiciary from the Executive there after a number at Class III and Class IV staff was given by the Collectors to function under the Judicial Officers and some staff was appointed separately. This did not prove very satisfactory for several reasons and Government has now decided in the interest of administration and convenience of control to form separate cadres for this staff under the sole direct control of District Judges. 2. After collecting information with regard to the Class III and Class IV staff working under the separation scheme and examining the various aspects with regard to their absorption, it has been decided that in absorbing the staff the principle, so far as it relates to the staff given from the Executive, will be that the date of appointment of a clerk or peon to different grades in the Collectorate will be deemed as the date of his appointment in the Judicial Service to the corresponding grades. He will be fitted into the gradation list accordingly. 3. For persons appointed to Class III or Class IV posts by any other method the date of appointment under the Judicial Officers concerned will be the effective date for the purpose of seniority. 4. For the purpose of determination of inter se seniority amount the Class III and IV employees, each judgeship in which the separation scheme has been put into force is to be treated as an individual unit and the date of continuous appointment without break in each grade shall be the date for fixation of inter se seniority. In exceptional cases of abnormal hardship, reference giving all details should be made to Government whose decision will be final. 5. The age limit of 58 years for superannuation will be applicable. The minimum educational qualification and other qualifications in the case of Class III and IV Government servants for appointment are to be maintained. The existing incumbents transferred from the Collector's establishment who do not possess the above requirements should be exempted. 5. The age limit of 58 years for superannuation will be applicable. The minimum educational qualification and other qualifications in the case of Class III and IV Government servants for appointment are to be maintained. The existing incumbents transferred from the Collector's establishment who do not possess the above requirements should be exempted. Class III staff transferred from the Collectorate, who have not passed the Departmental Examination in the parent cadre shall pass the said Departmental Examination after they are absorbed in the establishment of the respective District Judges. In case the transferred staff fail to pass the Departmental Examination after their absorption the penalties shall be the same as would have been imposed on them in their parent cadre. As regards the Class III staff newly appointed under the scheme of separation, they shall pass the Departmental Examinations prescribed for the Civil Court clerks after absorption and in case, they fail to pass the same, the penalties shall be the same as would be imposed in the case of the clerks in the Civil Courts establishments. 6. Permanent and temporary posts that have been transferred from the Collector's establishment to the establishment of the District Judge or criminal Courts shall cease to exist in the Collector's establishment with effect from the date of issue of this resolution. xx xx xx xx. By Order of the Governor, Sd. Amarsingh, Addl. Secretary to Government." (Annexure-16). 6. The High Court of Orissa in their letter No. 6420 dated 14/15th September, 1966, issued instructions for the guidance of the District Judges in the matter of fixation of seniority and giving promotion to the transferred personnel from the executive in Class III and Class IV staff. The letter reads as follows :- "Copy of latter No. 6420(6) IV-A-22/65 dated 14/15-9-1966 from Shri A. Misra, B.L., Registrar of the High Court of Orissa to the District Judge in the separation distinct of the State. In continuation of the Court's memo No. 1 dated 25-1-1966 forwarding a copy of General Letter No. 4 of 1965 (Civil), I am directed to say that on careful consideration, the Court are pleased to direct that the principles mentioned below should be strictly followed in order to secure uniformity of practice regarding the fixation of seniority and giving promotion to the transferred personnel from the Executive in Class III and Class IV staff. (1) The date of appointment of a clerk or peon transferred from the Executive to different grades in the Collectorate shall be deemed as the date of appointment in the Judicial Service to the corresponding grade, namely, if an L.D. clerk is transferred from the Collectorate, his date of appointment should be the criterion for fixing his seniority in the gradation list of the L.D. clerks as on the date of introduction of the scheme. If any junior clerk serving in the civil establishment has been given promotion in the meanwhile he should be reverted and if the senior transferred clerk is found fit for promotion, he should be given promotion in that vacancy. Even if the confirmation of any clerk has been made after such promotion in the higher grade after the date of the introduction of the scheme, the said confirmation should not stand in the way of giving promotion to the senior man, he being declared senior to the confirmed incumbent. (2) Similarly, if an upper division clerk of the Collectorate has been transferred to the Judiciary, his date of appointment in the Upper Division should be taken as the basis for deciding his seniority in that grade and any promotion to the next higher grades given on the civil or criminal side or confirmations made after the date of introduction of the scheme should not be treated as a bar to the seniority or promotion of the transferred persons." (Annexure-18). 7. Admittedly, there were no statutory rules governing the conditions of service of the ministerial staff in the establishment of the District Judges till December, 1969. It was, therefore, open to the authorities to adopt any reasonable criterion and lay down principles by administrative instructions. The criterion adopted in Annexures 16 and 18 is quite reasonable and not arbitrary. 8. The fact that O.P. No. 4 was appointed as lower division clerk and promoted as junior upper division clerk prior to the petitioner would not made him senior in the grade of senior upper division clerks. The criterion adopted in Annexures 16 and 18 is quite reasonable and not arbitrary. 8. The fact that O.P. No. 4 was appointed as lower division clerk and promoted as junior upper division clerk prior to the petitioner would not made him senior in the grade of senior upper division clerks. The seniority of the petitioner vis-a-vis O.P. No. 4 has to be determined in the light of the principles laid down in the paragraphs 1 and 2 of Annexure 18 according to which the date of appointment of a clerk transferred from the executive to different grades in the Collectorate shall be deemed as the date of appointment in the judicial service to the corresponding grades and if an upper division clerk of the Collectorate has been transferred to the judiciary, his date of appointment in the upper division should be taken as the basis for deciding his seniority in that grade. In paragraph 2 it is further emphasized that any promotion to the next higher grade given on the civil or criminal side or confirmation made after the date of introduction of the scheme should not be treated as a bar to the seniority for promotion of the transferred persons. In the fourth paragraph of Annexure 16, it is also laid down that the date of continuous appointment without break in each grade shall be the date for fixation of inter se seniority. As mentioned earlier, the petitioner was promoted to the senior upper division grade on 1-4-1961 whereas O.P. No. 4 was promoted to that grade on 11-12-1961. Apparently, no member of the staff in the establishment of the District Judge was considered suitable for appointment to the post of Judicial Peskar for which the petitioner had to be transferred from the Collectorate. Petitioner has passed the departmental and accounts examinations and has continued to hold the post in the grade of senior upper division clerks since 1-4-1961. As he joined in the grade on an earlier date, he is entitled to rank senior to O.P. No. 4. 9. No reasons have been assigned in Annexure 14 for declaring O.P. No. 4 senior to the petitioner. As he joined in the grade on an earlier date, he is entitled to rank senior to O.P. No. 4. 9. No reasons have been assigned in Annexure 14 for declaring O.P. No. 4 senior to the petitioner. Seniority is a civil right of a Government servant on the basis of which he can claim consideration tor future promotion and an arbitrary order changing the seniority affects the civil rights of a Government and is violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. 10. In the result, the writ petition is allowed in part and the order in Annexure 14 is quashed. The petitioner is declared senior to O.P. No. 4-Harihar Panda in the grade of senior upper division clerks. The petitioner's claim of seniority over O.P. Nos. 3 and 5 is dismissed. We make no order as to costs. N.K. Das, J. - I agree. Final Result : Partly Allowed