ORDER In the writ petition, the petitioners prayed for a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents forthwith act in accordance with law and prepare the graduation list and/or seniority list of the Geologist (Junior) from the date of initial appointment and/or from the date of initial officiation and/or from the date of initial induction in the cadre of Geologist (Junior) in the Geological Survey of India and for cancellation and withdrawal of the gradation list which was prepared and published on 17.11.84 giving retrospective seniority of the promotee Geologist (Junior), before their induction in the cadre of Geologist (Junior) and/or before their officiation to the post of Geologist (Junior). The petitioners further prayed for a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondents to recommend the name of the Geologist (Junior) for the promotion to the post of Geologist (Senior) on the basis of seniority fixed from the date of initial appointment and/or initial officiation. 2. The petitioners were all initially appointed as Geologist (Junior) as per recruitment rules for the post of Geologist (Junior) in the Geologist Survey of India on the basis of the merit and on the basis of the results of the competitive examination conducted by the Union Public Service Commission during the years 1976 to 1981. The petitioners state that the next avenue for promotion for the post of Geologist (Junior) is Geologist (Senior) and in order to be eligible for appointment to the said post of Geologist (Senior), 5 year’s continuous service in the post of Geologist (Junior) was mandatory required and that all the petitioners had duly completed and were going to complete 5 year’s continuous service in the post of Geologist (Junior). According to the petitioners, all the petitioners who had completed 5 year’s service in the post of Geologist (Junior), would be eligible and entitled to be promoted to the post of Geologist (Junior). The petitioners’ case was that the petitioner’s seniority have been determined in accordance with he recruitment rules and the respondents prepared a gradation list and/or seniority list fixing the seniority of the petitioners in accordance with law. It was further stated that such gradation list and/or seniority list was published and circulated by the Respondents in the year 1982 which according to the petitioners was prepared strictly in accordance with law. It was further stated that such gradation list and/or seniority list was published and circulated by the Respondents in the year 1982 which according to the petitioners was prepared strictly in accordance with law. It was further stated that in the said seniority list which was published and circulated in the year 1982, the seniority position of the petitioners were between serial Nos. 968 and 1435. It was alleged by the petitioners that after publication of the said seniority list in the year 1982, some of the prospective promotee Geologist (Junior) moved a writ application before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, alleging that the said gradation list was not prepared in accordance with Jaw, but as the Ministry of Steel and Mines. Department of Mines issued direction to prepare gradation list at the ratio of 1 : 1 on the purported plea that the quota rule was not maintained in the years 1976, 1977, 1978 and 1979 and in order to accommodate the promotee Geologist (Junior) in the gradation/seniority list on the basis of recruitment rules, the sonority with retrospective effect to the promotee Geologists were issued. In other words, the case of the petitioners was that the respondents proceeded to revise the seniority list on the footing that the quota of the promotes for appointment in the post of Geologist (Junior) in the years 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979 were not fully filled up by the prpmotees, but the quota earmarked for the promotees were encroached by the direct recruits in contravention of the recruitment rules. As such, the alleged reserved vacancies allegedly earmarked for the promotees should be shown to have been filled up by the promotees who are recruited at a much later date and in some case several years after the direct recruitees were appointed in the said posts. 3. The petitioner’s contention is that the promotee Geologists (Junior) cannot have any seniority form an artificial or imaginary date. Their seniority has be fixed form the date of their promotion to the post and that they could not be given seniority with retrospective effect, namely, form a date on which they had not been promoted and from a date on which they were not eligible to be promoted at all. Their seniority has be fixed form the date of their promotion to the post and that they could not be given seniority with retrospective effect, namely, form a date on which they had not been promoted and from a date on which they were not eligible to be promoted at all. According to the petitioners, the question of keeping the quota fixed for the promotes could not be kept vacant in view of the recruitment rules and further the appointment of the petitioners in the respective years were made on direct recruitment basis in accordance with the recruitment rules and that it at it was no longer open to the respondents to re-open the issue and to take away the seniority which was fixed in respect of the direct recruitee in the post of Geologist (Junior) which was fixed with effect from their date of appointment. The relevant provision namely Rule 10 of the Recruitment Rules for the post of Geologist (Junior) is set out below “50% by promotion failing which by direct recruitment through competitive examination to be conducted by the Union Public Service Commission failing which by ad be selection by open advertisement through U P. S C. and 50% through competitive examination to be conducted by a selection failing which ad hoc selection by open advertisement through the Commission, It may be mentioned that the said recruitment rules was framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India 4. Relying upon the provision of Rule 10 of the said Recruitment Rules, it was contended by the petitioners that in the years 1976, 1977, 1978 and 1979 as there was no eligible persons for pre motion to the post of Geologist (Junior), the posts were filed up by direct recruitment aid that such filling up was validly done in view of the use (If the word "failing which", in the recruitment rule. Under the provision of the Recruitment Rules. 50% quota is to be filled up by promotion. but if the promotees are not available for promotion under the rules. in that event, the some is required to be filled up by direct recruitment There is no provision and/or any scope for carry forward of the vacancies for the promotees and as there were no eligible promotees for promotion in the said post, the petitioners were appointed in the said post according to the recruitment rules. in that event, the some is required to be filled up by direct recruitment There is no provision and/or any scope for carry forward of the vacancies for the promotees and as there were no eligible promotees for promotion in the said post, the petitioners were appointed in the said post according to the recruitment rules. The promotees who are claiming seniority over the petitioners who were promoted several years after the petitioners were appointed in the posts. It was further stated that on or about 17.11.84, a provisional gradation list was published and/or circulated by the respondents as on 1.3.83 and from the said gradation list it 'revealed that the seniority of the direct1y appointed Geologist (Junior) including the petitioners have been abruptly changed and the promotee Geologists (Junior) who have been promoted during the month of February and May. 1983, have been assigned seniority over the petitioners and others directly recruited Geologist (Junior) who were admittedly appointed several years before the promotees who were promoted in the post of Geologist (Junior). In the writ petition, the petitioners disclosed the particulars of the seniority position of the directly recruited and promotee officers and that it is not necessary to set out these particulars in details for the present purpose. But It would be sufficient for the purpose of this case to point out that persons who have been promoted on officiation basis on or after 31st January, 1983. Were given seniority with retrospective effect from 1976 over the directly recruited officers The draft seniority list was produced before the court at the time of the hearing wherein it appears that there are some blank serial Nos. in the seniority list which was kept vacant with the remark that the same had to be filled up subsequently by the promotee officers From 1983 seniority list, it appears that serial Nos. 1200, 1203, 1207, 1209, 1210 have been kept vacant with the remark "to be filed up later on by promotees." From the said seniority list it also appears that the seniority of Md. Iqbal who was promoted in the post on 6.10.78 under Serial No 733 was shown senior to Shri Amitava Roy (Serial No 734) who was appointed directly on 12.8.74. Iqbal who was promoted in the post on 6.10.78 under Serial No 733 was shown senior to Shri Amitava Roy (Serial No 734) who was appointed directly on 12.8.74. Similarly, there are innumerable instance in the seniority list where the promotod who were promoted several years after the persons who were appointed directly, have been shown to be seniors. The respondents No 1 to 5 filed affidavit-in opposition In the said affidavit-in opposition the reasons for revising the seniority list and making the direct recruitees who are recruited several years before the promotees as juniors was that as large numbers of representation were received from promotees regarding their inter se seniority the matter was considered by the Director General, Geological Survey of India and it was alleged that in view of the representation from the promotee Geologists (Junior) which were causing a serious concern among the incumbents involving there future career prospective, a committee was appointed by the Director General, Geological Survey of India to go into the atleast of the criteria of drawing up of the seniority list as on 1.2.82 was prepared according to the directive of the said committee and the same was forwarded to the Ministry concerned on 9.4.84. It was further stated in paragraph 8 of the said affidavit-in-opposition that “due to non availability of sufficient number of candidates eligible for promotion, 373 out of 146 vacancies under D.P.C. quota available during 1976 were recruitment in the year 1978. Number of candidates in the grade of Assistant Geologist eligible for promotion during the year 1977, 1978 and 1979 were 24, 24 and 47 respectively. It was further stated that the provisional gradation list of Geologist (Junior) as on 1.3.83 was prepared according to clarification given by the Department of Personnel and Admn. Reforms, is communicated by the Ministery under letter No. A-2. 024/4/82-M2 dated 22.9.1984. From the said letter it appears that the copy of the letter of the Ministry of Steel and Mines, Department of Mines dated 28th July, 1984 is annexure ‘X’ to the petition. The said memo dated 28th July, 1984 was issued on the question of seniority principles to be adopted when posts meant for promotion quota are advertised to direct recruitment in view of non availability of persons for promotion. 5. In the said memo it was stated that during past several years. The said memo dated 28th July, 1984 was issued on the question of seniority principles to be adopted when posts meant for promotion quota are advertised to direct recruitment in view of non availability of persons for promotion. 5. In the said memo it was stated that during past several years. Officers for promotions were not available for consideration of promotion and as such, vacancies available for promotion were diverted for direct recruitment and large number of direct recruits were recruited in block and that under such situation, the following questions sought to have arisen : “A for the candidates recruited as direct recruits by diversion of vacancies from promotion quota to direct recruitment are basically direct recruits whether such candidates can be assigned seniority as to be assigned to promotees/or whether they can be assigned in block seniority Dove-Tailing of vacancies between recruits and promotees. B. Whether irrespective of fact that direct recruitments of promotes are not available for some time seniority is to be fixed dove-tailing of vacancies in the rare of 1 : 1 D R and promotees (50% D R.: 50% P.) notwithstanding bow while the slots vacant for D. R. or promotees as the case may be in the seniority list are i e. vacant slots will not lapse" 6. It appears that on the basis of this said memo Shri C. L. Sharma, Desk Officer, Department of personnel and A. R Estt. (D) section issued direction on the questions referred to whereby it was slated that In the normal case, the relative seniority of direct recruits and/or promotees ale to be determined according to the rotation of vacancies between D R s and promotees on the basis of quota of vacancies for direct recruitment and promotion respectively in Recruitment. The said memo also provided that "However, in the instant Case since the failing which clause has been provided in the Rules in the Case of non availability of persons for promotion, the direct recruits appointed in such eventuality will be treated as promotees for the-purpose of rotation of vacancies between D. R sand promotees. It may he stated here that the 'failing which' clause in such case can be operated only when the normal channel of failing which' vacancies from the source from which they are required to he filled, fails". It may he stated here that the 'failing which' clause in such case can be operated only when the normal channel of failing which' vacancies from the source from which they are required to he filled, fails". It was alleged that the actions of the Respondent No 1 to 5 were contrary to the decisions given or clarifications made on the questions referred to in this behalf It was the Case of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 that the promotee Geologists (Junior) were given the higher seniority position as the same were favourable to thorn on the basis of the principle of quota earmarked for the promotees should have been filled up by the promotees and that same could not have been filled lip by the direct recruits and that on the basis of the quota the promotees who were promoted in later years. were assigned seniority in earlier year on the basis of 50% : 50% i e. 50% direct recruits and 50% promotees. 7. It was also contended that it was a clear case where the seniority of the promotee officers were assigned in violation of the relevant Recruitment Rules inasmuch under the Recruitment Rules in any particular year the 50% quota ear marked for the promotees could not have been filled up because of the non-availability of the promotee officers. in that event, the same should be fitted up by directly recruited officers and under Recruitment Rules, there was no provision for early forward of the vacancies earmarked for the promotees and in the instant case, admittedly during the relevant years due to non-availability of promotee officers, a large number of posts which were available for the promotees, were filled up by direct recruitment because of non-availability of promotee officers and after a lapse of several years, the respondents on the basis of the representation made by the promotee officers assigned seniority to the promotee officers in those years when there were no eligible and/or available promotee officers. This was not permissible under the Recruitment Rules framed under Article 309 It was also alleged that it is firmly established principle that rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India could not be superseded by administrative orders of instructions In this case though the respondent No.1 to 5 relied on such instruction in support of their contention that the seniority of the direct recruited officers were disturbed and taken away by giving retrospective seniority to the promotee officers as there was no scope for diversion of the posts earmarked for the promotees for direct recruitment. This principle which was followed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 in the matter, is on the face of it illegal and arbitrary and/or contrary to the classification made by the Desk Officer of the Department of Personnel and AIR dated 15th September. 1985. 8. Mr. Piirtha Sdrathi Sengupta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended in the first place that the seniority already assigned to the direct recruits in the facts and circumstances of the case could not he disturbed in the manner which is contrary to the Statutory Rules as the posts wore filled up directly in accordance with the provision of the Recruitment Rules and secondly there is no scope for keeping the posts available for promotee officers vacant because of non-availability of promotee officers because of the expression of the words 'failing which' clause in the Recruitment Rules. when the Recruitment Rules specifically provided that in any particular year the 50% quota available for promotee officers could not be filled up because of non-availability of eligible officers for promotion, the same should be filled up by direct recruitment and in the instant case, it was admitted by the respondents that in these relevant years the promotee officers were not available and as such large number of posts had to be filled up by direct recruits Mr Sengupta further contended that it is also firmly established principle that when recruitment have been made for meeting the exigency of service even by relaxing the rules including the quota rules, the same could not be held to be invalid and the seniority in respect of persons who are appointed, should be counted from date of their appointments of course in the instant case there was no question of relaxation of the relevant Recruitment Rules and in the instant case the appointments were made strictly on the basis of the Recruitment Rule.. Mr Sengupta in Support of his contention relied on the decision of the Supreme Court of India in A. Janardhana v. Union of India reported in AIR 1983 SC 769 wherein it was held that when recruitment is from the independent source subject to prescribed quota, but the power is conferred on the Government to make recruitment in relaxation of the rules, any recruitment made contrary to quota rules would not be invalid unless it is shown that power of relaxation was exercised mala fide. In the said Case the Supreme Court considered the provisions of the Military Engineering Service, Class I (Recruitment, Promotion and Seniority) Rules, 1951. In that case the appellant A Janardhana joined the service as Suprevisor in the year 1953 in Military Engineering Service. He came to be promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer in the year 1962. In the seniority list drawn up in 1953, the appellant was shown at Serial No. 357. In the revised seniority list, dated June 14, 1974, the appellant did not find a place because consistent with the quota rules on the basis of which the revised seniority list of 1974 was prepared, the appellant was found surplus and could not find hyis berth in the seniority list. In the revised seniority list, dated June 14, 1974, the appellant did not find a place because consistent with the quota rules on the basis of which the revised seniority list of 1974 was prepared, the appellant was found surplus and could not find hyis berth in the seniority list. In that context, the Supreme Court held that “when recruitment is from two independent sources, subject to prescribed quota, but the power is conferred on the Government to make recruitment in relaxation of the rules, any recruitment made contrary to quota rule would not be invalid unless it is shown that the power of relaxation was exercised mala fide and that the appellant and those similarly situated were recruited by promotion as provided in R. 3(ii) and recruitment by promotion during these years, was in excess of the quota as provided in Rule 4. But the recruitments having been done for meeting the exigencies of service by relaxing the rules including the quota rules, the promotion in excess of quota would be valid keeping in view the exigencies of service and the requirements of the State, temporary post would be a temporary addition the strength of the cadre, when there was no provision in the rule that the temporary posts were for a certain duration or the appointment to temporary posts were for a certain duration or the appointments to temporary post were of an ad hoc nature till such time as recruitment according to the rules was made. If recruitment was made from either of the sources and was otherwise legal and valid, persons recruited to temporary posts would no nethless be members of the service” In that case the Supreme Court also observed that “A direct recruit who comes into service after a promotee, was already unconditional and when reservation of promotee and whose promotion is not shown to be invalid or illegal according to relevant statutory or non-statutory rules should not be permitted by any principle of seniority to score a march over a promotee because that itself being arbitrary, would be voilative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.” In the said case the Supreme Court considered the right of seniority of the promotees who were promoted earlier in the quota reserved for direct recruitment and that direct recruits who are directly recruited in much later years, were assigned seniority on the basis of their available quota in the relevant years. In that connection, the Supreme Court observed that “In the case in hand, the appellant a promotee of Sept 27, 1962 is put below N.K. Prinza who appeared at a competitive examination in April, 1976 i.e. one who come 14 years after the appellant and it does not require an intelligent exercise to reach a conclusion that 14 years prior to 1976 Mr. Prinza who is shown to be born on July 20, 1950 must the aged about 12 years and must have been studying in a primary school Shorn of all service jurisprudence jargon let us bluntly notice the situation that a primary school student when the promotee was a member of the service, barged. In and claimed and got seniority over the promotee If this has not a demoralising effect on service we fail to see what other iniquitous approach would be more damaging. It is, therefore', time to clearly initiate a proposition that a direct recruit who comes into service after the promotee was already unconditionally and without reservation promoted and whose promotion is not shown to be invalid and/or illegal according to relevant statutory or non-statutory rules should not be permitted by any principle of seniority to score a march over a promotee because that itself being arbitrary, would be violative of Article 14 and 16” Relying on the above observation of the Supreme Court, Mr. Sengupta contended that in the instant case, the ratio of the judgment is fully applicable in the a instant case and relying on the said principle, the promotee who was promoted in later years could not be allowed to score a march over the direct recruits who were appointed in earlier years and that too strictly on the basis of statutory rules. Mr. Sengupta also relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of S.B.Pattabhavdhana v. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1977 SC 2051 and Balwishwar Dass & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in AIR 1980 SC 41 for the proposition that the seniority should be counted form the date of commencement of the service officiating or otherwise in a particular cadre and that nobody can claim seniority form a date on which he was not appointed or promoted. All these case3s of the Supreme Court were considered in the latest decision of the Supreme Court in the case of G.S.Lamba & ors v. Union of India & ors reported in AIR 1985 SC 1019 . In that case, it was held by the Supreme Court that “Where recruitment to a service or a cadre is from more that one source, the controlling authority can prescribe quota for each source. It is equally correct that where the quota is prescribed, a rule of seniority by rotating the vacancies can be a valid rule of seniority. If the rule of seniority is inextricable intertwined with the quota rules and there is enormous deviation from the Rota rule. In giving effect to the Rota Rule after noticing the enormous departure from the quota rule would be violative of Article 14 and 16”. In that case, the petitioners were obtained at the examination conducted for the purpose in 1955 for appointment to the posts of Assistants and were allotted to the Ministry of External Affairs. After the initial constitution of the service in 1956, the petitioners were offered an option whether they would join I.F.S. “B” in Grade IV at the time of initial constitution. The memorandum constituting service provided that future maintenance of the service would be governed by the rules to be promulgated for the purpose by the Central Government. After the initial constitution of the service in 1956, the petitioners were offered an option whether they would join I.F.S. “B” in Grade IV at the time of initial constitution. The memorandum constituting service provided that future maintenance of the service would be governed by the rules to be promulgated for the purpose by the Central Government. The petitioners came to be promoted between 1976-79 from Grade IV to integrated Grade Ii and II of the Joint Cadre of IFS “B” as on June 25, 1979. The petitioners contended that the seniority list is violative of the Constitution guaranteed equality and particularly in the matter of public service inasmuch as the direct recruits who came into service long after the department promotees were regularly promoted to the aforementioned grades, have been assigned seniority over the earlier promoted departmental promotees. In that connection, the Supreme Court observed that even though there was violation of Rota rules, the seniority could not be disturbed in respect of the persons promoted earlier and the direct recruits who are appointed in much later years would not be allowed to score a march over the promotees who were promoted in earlier years. In that case, the Supreme Court also observed that “The inquiry, if it can be so called may b e demonstrably pointed cut at this stage with reference to seniority of 1979. Placements in this list of Serial Nos. 294, 300, 305…… 480 and 486 have been kept open or vacant and are to be filed in at a later date by assigning seniority to direct recruits who would be recruited to service for the first time after June 25, 1979 relevant to which seniority list was drawn up. These later recruits at some unknown future date would score a march by nearly hundred steps over one at No. 486 already in service by regular promotion.” In this case also as stated hereinbefore several placements in the seniority list have been kept vacant which were to be filled in at a later date by assigning seniority to the promotees. The Supreme Court in that case cancelled the seniority list even though appointment was made in violation of statutory quota rules for recruitment. The Supreme Court in that case cancelled the seniority list even though appointment was made in violation of statutory quota rules for recruitment. But in the instant case, there was no question of appointment in violation of the statutory rules and that the revised seniority list in which the seniority of the direct recruits who are made juniors to the promotees in the later years cannot be sustained on the basis of the principles laid down by the above Supreme Court decision. 9. Considering the rival contentions of the parties and the case laws cited in this behalf, it is crystal clear that the promotees in question have been assigned seniority with retrospective effect which is on the face of it illegal inasmuch as the date from which the seniority is counted, was not the date on which the incumbent concerned was promoted and/or appointed and that the date from which the seniority had been counted he was not at all eligible for being considered for such promotion. In order to be promoted in the post of Geologists (Junior), the promotee officers in the post below must have to his credit three years service. If a promotee who could not be considered for promotion in the post of Geologists (Junior) as he was not eligible for promotion, he could not be given promotion with effect from a date when he was not at all eligible for promotion and that such assignment of seniority is in direct violation of the provision of the Recruitment Rules. In view of the above decisions of the Supreme Court referred to above the seniority has to be counted from the date of the appointment and/or promotion whether temporarily and for officiating basis, in the instant case it is not disputed that the appointment of the direct recruitees in the quota available for the promotes have been given strictly on the basis of the Recruitment Rules and that it is also not disputed that there is no provision for carry-forward of the posts and as such the posts of Geologists (Junior) which were filled up at the relevant years were perfectly legal and valid and the directly recruited Geologists (Junior) whose seniority was assigned with effect from their date of appointment. could not be affected or disturbed by assigning seniority to Geologists (Junior) who was Promoted several years after the appointment of direct recruitee in the post of Geologist (Junior) had been made. This is not only arbitrary and mala fide, but contrary to the Recruitment Rules. 10 Turning to the "impugned seniority list which fur all practical purpose supersedes the earlier seniority list, placement at severed serial numbers have been kept vacant and those place would be filled up by promotee officers who may be promoted at some future date not specified. This disturbing feature in this case is that when promotion will he given at a Subsequent future date after the date of the seniority list, the vacancies would be assigned to the promotee officers even though the would enter into the cadre for the first time after the seniority list was published, would be senior to directly recruited officers holding substantive post at the serial number just below the serial numbers kept vacant. This is on the face of It is illegal and arbitrary The case of the Supreme Court in A Janardhana v. Union of India reported in AIR 1983 SC 769 and G. S Lamba v. Union of India reported in AIR 1985 SC 1019 relates to the assignment of seniority of direct recruits over the promotees, but this case is an opposite Case in which for the first time it is noticed that the promotees who are promoted several years after the officers who were appointed on direct recruitment basis, have been assigned seniority with retrospective effect and over the officers appointed on the basis of direct recruitment several years before the promotee officers were promoted on the basis of the recruitment rules. The ratio of the above decisions of the Supreme Court is fully applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case and the case of the writ petitioners is fully covered by the principles laid down in the above two decisions of the Supreme Court It is not necessary to give reasons in details to hold that the impugned seniority list by which the promotees has been assigned seniority in the year 1976, 1977, 1978 and 1979 was wholly arbitrary, illegal and is liable to be struck down particularly in view of the fact that it is an admitted position that in the year 1976, 1977, 1978 and 1979, the posts of Geologists (Junior) were filled up by the direct recrutee officer in the quota fixed for the promotee officers in view of the Recruitment Rules that the 50% quota reserved for the promotee officers should be filled up and in the case the promotee officers were not available and it is an admitted position that as the promotee officers were not available for filling up these vacancies, the balance quota reserved for promotee officers was filled up by the direct recruitment. There was no infirmity in these appointments and there could not be any question of carry forward of the posts in the subsequent years under the rules and the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 had acted in the matter illegally and in a most perfunctory manner in assigning seniority to promotee officers who are promoted on officiation basis on or after 31st March, 1977 with retrospective effect from 1976 onwards. This is not permissible and this clearly violates the provision of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. The seniority already assigned to the directly recruited officers could not be taken away by the respondents merely on the basis of some instructors issued in its administrative capacity contrary to the statutory rules for recruitment. The impugned seniority of the seniority list in an in lawful and arbitrary manner, the seniority of the directly recruited officers have been seniority affected and their right to get promotion to the posts of Geologists (Senior) have also been seriously affected in view of the fact that the post of Geologist (Senior) in a non-selection post, which means seniority is given solely on the basis of seniority and not on the basis of merit. So the promotion to the post of Geologist (Senior) is given directly on the basis of seniority and if the seniority position in the cadre of Geologist (Junior) is affected or disturbed, in that event their right to get promotion to the higher post are also equally affected. The seniority list in this case is for all practical purpose is the list of Geologists (Junior) for promotion to the post of Geologists (Senior) directly on the basis of the serial numbers in the seniority list. As it is held that the impugned seniority list has been prepared illegally, arbitrarily and was prepared in violation of the provision of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and therefore the same are also quashed. The promotions already given, if any, to the promotee officers on the basis of the assignments of retrospective seniority in the impugned seniority list are also quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to draw up a fresh seniority list on the basis of the date of appointment and/or promotions to the post of Geologists (Junior) in the light o the observations made above within three months from today in accordance with law and fill up the post of Geologist (Senior) immediately. This will not however affect the seniority of the direct recruit Geologist (Junior) recruited through the Public service Commission. Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and the respondents are directed to cancel and withdraw the gradation list which was published of 17.11.1984 fixing retrospective seniority of the promotee Geologists (Junior) before their induction in that cadre of Geologist (Junior). The writ application succeeds. The respondents shall pay costs of this application assessed at 10 G.M.s. Application allowed.