JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner Parmeshwar Dayal was initially appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the service of the State of Rajasthan in the Intermediate grade on August 9, 1951. The petitioner passed the B. Com. examination in the year 1954 and obtained the degree of B. Ed. in the year 1956. He was temporarily promoted to the untrained grade with effect from July 1, 1956. He was selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission for the untrained graduate grade on August 29, 1959. The untrained graduate grade was later on made available to the petitioner with effect from July 31, 1959, while he was given the trained graduate grade with effect from August 29, 1959. The petitioner passed the M. Com. examination in the year 1959 and was approved by the public Service Commission for the post of a Senior Teacher with effect from September 17, 1966 2. In the provisional seniority list of untrained graduate grade teachers as on September 27, 1962, the petitioner was placed at No. 1266 on the basis that he was selected by the Public Service Commission for appointment as untrained graduate grade teacher on August 29, 1959, Swarajpal, respondent No. 3 was assigned seniority at serial No. 1682 in the provisional seniority list. In the final seniority list of untrained graduate grade teachers, called the second grade teachers, as on August 31, 1561, Swarajpai was assigned seniority at No. 1067 on the basis that he was assigned untrained graduate grade with effect from July 1, 1957 while the petitioner was assigned seniority at No. 1622 on the ground that he was given untrained graduate grade with effect from July 31, 1959. In a subsequent final seniority list published on June 2, 1965 Swarajpal, respondent No. 3 was given seniority at No. 1064 on the same ground that be was given untrained graduate grade with effect from July 1, 1957 while the petitioner was assigned seniority at No. 1435, as he was given untrained graduate grade with effect from July 31, 1959. 3. The petitioner's case is that Swarajpal was appointed to the untrainted intermediate grade on November 2, 1953 after the petitioner. He passed his B. Ed. 3. The petitioner's case is that Swarajpal was appointed to the untrainted intermediate grade on November 2, 1953 after the petitioner. He passed his B. Ed. examination along with the petitioner in the year 1956, but although the petitioner was selected by the Public Service Commission for the post of untrained graduate grade teacher and was allowed the grade with effect from July 31, 1959, yet Swarajpal was selected by the Public Service Commission later and he was given the grade of untrained graduate teachers in consequence thereof with effect from July 1, 1961. However, the seniority of Swarajpal was revised in the final seniority list on the ground that he was selected on the post of untrained graduate grade teacher as on July 1, 1957, on the basis of certain circulars issued by the State Government in connection with the merger of Ajmer with the State of Rajasthan. The reason for revising the. seniority of respondent No. 3 is said to be that he was allowed an ad hoc appointment on a post in the untrained graduate grade with effect from October 1, 1956 for a period of six months and thereafter respondent No. 3 was screened by a Committee and was found suitable for promotion and so he was given the untrained teachers' grade with effect from July 1, 1957. The petitioner's case is that although he was senior to respondent No. 3 from the very beginning and was selected earlier by the Public Service Commission for a post in the untrained teachers' grade, yet respondent No. 3 has been unlawfully given a march over the petitioner on account of a fortuitous circumstance that the said respondent No. 3 was allowed an ad hoc promotion on a post of an untrained graduate grade teacher for a period of 6 months from October 1, 1956. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the seniority of untrained intermediate teachers was kept range wise and as the petitioner and Swarajpal, respondent No. 3. were teachers in Commerce having passed their B. Com examination, the petitioner should have been promoted to the untrained graduate grade post instead of Swarajpal and that he should have been assigned seniority at the place where Swarajpal was shown in the seniority list of untrained graduate grade teachers. 4. were teachers in Commerce having passed their B. Com examination, the petitioner should have been promoted to the untrained graduate grade post instead of Swarajpal and that he should have been assigned seniority at the place where Swarajpal was shown in the seniority list of untrained graduate grade teachers. 4. The petitioner relied upon the notification issued by the State Government dated September 9, 1965, for determination of seniority of teachers other than Gr. III teachers Para II of the aforesaid circular provided the criteria for determination of seniority of persons appointed in each grade on or after January 1, 1950 as under:The seniority in each grade of person appointed thereto on or after 1-1-50 shall be determined as follows: (a) In respect of persons appointed on the recommendations of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, seniority shall in all cases be determined with reference to the date of' such recommendations. Those recommended on the same date will rank interse in the order of preference indicated by the Commission. Notes: 1. Where no order of preference is mentioned in the recommendation of the commission, unless there is any indication to the contrary, the seniority in respect of persons promoted from next lower grade will be determined in the older in which they had been placed in such lower grade and in respect of persons who have not been so promoted, seniority will be determined by age. Persons older in age will be treated as senior those who are younger. The promotees will be enblock senior to the direct recruits. 2. Where order of preference has been indicated by the commission but more then one recommendation is made on the same day in respect of different subjects, the persons who have been given the same ranking will be treated on the same footing and their inter-se seniority shall be determined as in Note 1. 3. Persons appointed without the recommendation of the Rajasthan. Public Service Commission to any cadre, recruitment to which was formerly in their purview but has now ceased to be so, shall count their seniority from the date of their order of appointment and where such order has been made effective from a particular date, their seniority shall be reckoned with reference to such date, subject to the condition that such persons shall be enblock junior to the persons recruited on the basis of the Commission's recommendations. The persons promoted from the next lower grade on the basis of orders issued on or made effective from the same date, as the case may be, will retain their inter se seniority in such lower grade while the seniority of those not falling in this category will be determined according to age, persons older in age being senior to those who are younger. The promotees will be enblock senior to those appointed otherwise." 5. Para 12 of the aforesaid circular further provides that persons who were passed over in making promotions to the next higher grade, without assigning any reasons, would on subsequent promotion to such higher grade, be give the same seniority which they would have got had they not been superseded. 6. By its circular dated April 16, 1971 the State Government published the criteria for determination of seniority of teachers employed in the Education department of the State, as determined by the Government of India in consultation with the State Advisory Committee. Para 4 of the circular provides that the Rajasthan unit seniority of teachers in each grade as on October 31, 1956 should be determined as under: (i) teachers substantially appointed in a particular cadre from a date prior to November 1, 1935. (ii) teachers actually confirmed in a particular cadre before November 1, 1956. (iii) teachers regularly appointed during the period from November 1, 1955 to October 31, 1956. (iv) Teachers appointed during the period from November 1, 1955 to October 31, 1956. The last mentioned clause was included in the aforesaid circular because the Rajasthan Public Service Commission had accorded general approval to the promotion of all untrained graduate grade teachers selected by the Commission and thus regularly appointed teachers as on October 31, 1956 were directed to be treated as substantively appointed for the purpose of determination of seniority. It was further provided in the aforesaid notification that those teachers who were appointed in an officiating capacity, but without selection, during the period from November 1, 1955 to October 31, 1956 should be shown in a separate list and they may be assigned their due position in the main seniority list, if they were found suitable after necessary screening, in accordance with the rules or orders applicable to them on October 31, 1956, without altering their inter se seniority. It was also provided that after preparing separate seniority lists of Ajmer unit end Rajasthan unit in respect of each grade of teachers, both the seniority lists should be interlaced and final seniority list of trained and untrained teachers should be prepared. 7. A clarification was issued subsequently on April 22, 1971 by the State Government in continuation of the notification dated April 16, 1971 and it was provided therein hat in order to avoid anomaly and disturbance in the existing provisional interlaced seniority list, the teachers may be categorised in the following groups: Group A:- Teachers who were selected upto October 31, 1956; Group B:- Teachers not selected upto October 31, 1956 but who were confirmed with effect from a date prior to November 1, 1956; Group C:- Teachers who were neither selected nor confirmed, but appointed prior to November 1, 1955; Group D:- Teachers neither selected nor confirmed, but were appointed during the period from November 1, 1955 to October 31, 1956. 8. The main list was to consist of groups A, B and C enblock, one after another. In respect of Group D, it was provided that the names of teachers falling in that category shall be added to the seniority list, subject to their being found suitable after screening. It may be observed that the aforesaid Circulars dated April 16, 1971 and April 22, 1971 were produced before me by the learned Deputy Government Advocate and it was discovered that the petitioner did not correctly reproduce the Circular dated April 16, 1971. 9. Swarajpal, respondent No. 3 is said to have been given prior seniority on account of the aforesaid circulars dated April 16, 1971 April 22, 1971, on the basis that although he was neither selected nor confirmed prior to November 1, 1956, but was appointed as a teacher in the untrained graduate grade during the period from November 1, 1955 to October 31, 1956 and he was subsequently found suitable on screening. There is no doubt that Swarajpal respondent No. 3 was appointed in an officiating capacity without selection during the period from November 1, 1955 to October 31, 1956 and en screening he was found suitable for promotion, but he could not have been allowed to get a march over the petitioner, because the circular dated April 16, 1971 clearly provides that such teachers would be assigned their due promotion "without altering their inter-se seniority." In my view the IV category pointed out in the circular dated April 16, 1971 and specified as group 'D' in the clarificatory circular dated April 22, 1971, containing teachers who were neither selected nor confirmed but were appointed in an officiating capacity without selection during the period from November 1, 1955 to October 31, 1956, reference to those teachers who were promoted in the ordinary course and who thereafter continued to hold the posts in the higher grade even at the time of screening, after they were so appointed between November 1, 1955 and October 31, 1956. The said category could not include within its ambit a teacher like respondent No. 3, who was given merely a fortuitous promotion for a limited period of 6 months, which incidentally might have fallen during November 1, 1955 to October 31, 1956. If a teacher in a lower grade was promoted to a post in the untrained graduate grade, in accordance with the inter-se seniority, although without selection and in an officiating capacity, yet he could be given the untrained graduate grade from the date of his appointment in that grade, if he was found suitable after necessary screening. The reason for assigning higher seniority to such a person in obvious, namely that he had gained experience by continuously working for a long time on a post in the higher grade. The circulars referred to above, with regard to the determination of inter-se seniority, were issued in the year 1971 while the earlier circular giving detailed criteria for selection was issued on September 9, 1965 and if a person continuously officiated in a higher grade even in the year 1971, having been promoted to that grade between November 1, 1955 and October 31, 1956, then on account of his continuous officiation for such a long time, such teacher acquit ed experience on the higher post. As such, it was reasonable to assign seniority in the higher grade to such a teacher after his suitability was adjudged by a screening committee. But if a teacher was given merely a promotion only for a small duration of 6 months on the higher post, then such a person was not entitled to assignment of higher seniority, merely on the basis of such a fortuitous promotion if by chance the date fell within the period for November 1, 1955 to October 31, 1956. 10. It was well within the notice of the Government of India and the State Government that before the merger of Ajmer State with Rajasthan took place with effect from November 1, 1956, irregular promotions were given to persons who were neither selected nor confirmed and in order to give weightage to the experience acquired by them on account of continuous officiation for long period, the method referred in the two circulars of April 1971 was evolved to regularise their appointments. If such persons were suitable after necessary screening they were assigned higher position in the seniority list so that the experience which such persons had gained by continuous officiation on the higher post may be given due weightage, but benefit of the said circulars could not be given to a person who merely held a fortuitous promotion for a short duration which by chance fell between the period from November 1, 1955 to October 31, 1956, In my view, a teacher who had worked merely for a short period on fortuitous promotion would not fall within the category referred to in the circular dated April 16, 1971 and specified as group 'B' in the subsequent circular dated April 22, 1971, as that would have the effect of altering the interse seniority of teachers in the higher grade. The main basis for assignment of seniority in the untrained graduate grade or any other grade of teachers was selection by the Public Service Commission, subject to the categories contained in the last two sub-clauses which were inserted, as the circular dated April 22, 1971 itself specified, in order to avoid anomalies and cause minimum disturbance in the current provisional inter- laced seniority list. The circular of 1971 undoubtedly gave benefit to untrained graduate teachers who were not selected but were appointed prior to October 31, 1956, by assigning them higher seniority with reference to the date of the order of their appointment, over selected teachers who were assigned seniority with reference to the date of their selection. But as I have pointed out above, those non-selected teachers, appointed prior to October 31, 1956 could only be given benefit of seniority over selected candidates, who were assigned seniority with reference to the date of their selection, because of the longer period of continuous experience on the, higher post, which such non-selected teachers might have gained on account of their continuously working on the post in higher grade as a result of their appointment prior to October 31, 1956. A mere fortuitous promotion for a short duration of six months or so cannot make a person eligible for assignment of higher seniority as the same would seriously prejudice persons senior to him in the same category. If a teacher was appointed to the post in higher grade for a few months between November 1, 1955 to October 31, 1956 but was since reverted to his substantive post in the lower grade he will not be entitled to assignment of higher seniority. 11. The respondents admitted in para 20 of their reply that respondent No. 3 was given only an ad hoc appointment and a regular promotion was not given to him and as such the question of supersession of the petitioner does not arise. If the interpretation which has been sought to be placed by the department on the circulars of 1971 be accepted, then any person who was given a fortuitous promotion only for a short duration between November 1, 1955 and October 31, 1956 would be entitled to assignment of higher seniority, if on scrutiny he was found suitable for such promotion and in that event fortuitous promotion would obviously lead to supersession of the senior persons. In my view, the Education Department has not correctly interpreted the circulars dated April 16, 1971 and April 22, 1971. It may be kept in mind that the subsequent circular dated April 22, 1971 was merely issued by way of clarification in respect of the earlier Circular dated April 16, 1971 and as such both the circulars must be read together. It may be kept in mind that the subsequent circular dated April 22, 1971 was merely issued by way of clarification in respect of the earlier Circular dated April 16, 1971 and as such both the circulars must be read together. As the respondent No. 3 was given untrained graduate grade with effect from July 1, 1961 then merely because of the fact that be held the post in the higher grade for sometime in the year 1956 could not enable him to get higher seniority assigned than the petitioner who was admittedly senior to him in the lower grade. There can be no dispute that the petitioner and respondent No. 3 both were teachers in Commerce holding the degrees of B.Com. and B . Ed. The petitioner was undoubtedly senior to the respondent No. 3 in the untrained intermediate grade and was entitled to promotion in the higher untrained graduate grade before respondent No. 3. But by a fortuitous promotion only for a few months prior to the merger of Ajmer State into the bigger State of' Rajasthan on November 1, 1956 would not entitle the respondent No. 3 for assignment of higher seniority then the petitioner, as the same would amount to disturbing the inter-se seniority, obviously without any basis or on a very flimsy basis, if at all. The respondents stated in para 21 of their reply that respondent No. 3 was promoted to the next higher post of Head Master of Secondary School with effect from July 3, 1973, only on urgent temporary basis and without prejudice to the seniority of others. 12. Although, it is not possible to assign seniority to the petitioner with effect from July 1, 1956 or to direct that he may be screened by a committee as he did not fall within the category mentioned in Group 'D' of Circular dated April 16, 1971 and April 22, 1971 yet the petitioner is entitled to retain his seniority over respondent No. 3 Thus, the assignment of higher seniority to respondent No. 3 would have the effect of altering his inter se seniority qua the petitioner which was not contemplated in the aforesaid circulars. It therefore appears that the State Government has not properly interpreted the two circulars of 1971, which were issued for the purpose of determination of interlaced seniority between Rajasthan State Employees and the Ajmer State Employees and not for the purpose of causing disturbance in the inter se seniority of Rajasthan Employees, who fell within the same unit whose inter se seniority was not intended to be adversely affected as a result of the aforesaid two circulars. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is held that respondent No. 3 was erroneously given untrained graduate grade with effect from July 1, 1956 and was wrongly assigned higher seniority on that basis and that he should have been assigned seniority on the basis of his obtaining the untrained graduate grade with effect from July 1, 1961. The writ petition is Consequently partly allowed and seniority assigned to respondent No. 3 on the basis that he was given the untrained graduate grade from July 1, 1957 is set aside. The seniority of respondent No. 3 should be redetermined with reference to the date on which he was appointed to the post in the untrained graduate grade after due selection. The petitioner may be given any ancillary relief, if found entitled to the same on the basis of alteration of his seniority vis-a-vis that of respondent No. 3. The parties are left to bear their own costs. *******