JUDGMENT 1. - In this writ petition, the petitioner Lokeshwarnath has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the order (Annex-8) dated August 17/23, 1977 passed by the Chairman of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as `the Board') and the order (Annex-9) dated August 20/23, 1977 passed by the Secretary of the Respondent board whereby Shri S.P. Bhatnagar, respondent No. 3 has been promoted as Head Draughtsman by treating his as senior to Shri S.N. Gupta Head Draughtsman. 2. Respondent No. 3 was initially appointed as a work charged Tracer on 2nd February, 1951. By order dated 9th August, 1968 his appointment on the post of Tracer was regularised with effect from 1st April, 1951. By order dated 1st February, 1915, he was promoted on the post of Asstt Draughtsman and by order dated 2th July, 1961, he was promoted as Draughtsman or on provisional basis. 3. Shri S.N. Gupta was initially appointed as Asstt. Draughtsman on Workcharged basis on 29th June, 1952 and he was regularised on the post of Asstt. Draughtsman on 1st May, 1954. He was appointed as Draughtsman Gr. II on 1st February, 1955 and as Draughtsman Gr. I on 1st April, 1955 and as Head Draughtsman on 10th February, 1957. 4. The petitioner. Lokeshwarnath, was appointed as Draughtsman Gr. II by order dated 25th October, 1957 and he was promoted as Draughtsman Gr. I on provisional basis by order dated 28th July, 1961 By virtue of settlement dated 16th February, 1977, he has been treated to be confirmed as Draughtsman Gr. I with effect from 31st March, 1969. 5. By circular dated 22nd June, 1972 a final seniority list of Draughtsman as on 1st July, 1901, was issued. In the said seniority list the name of shri S.N. Gupta was placed at S.N). 2 amongst Head Draughtsman the name of the petitioner was placed at S.No. 23 amongst Draughtsman Gr. I and the name of respondent No. 3 was placed at S.No. 23 amongst Draughtsman Gr. II. It appears that respondent No. 3 made a representation against fixation of his seniority and claimed seniority over Shri S.N. Gupta. The said representation of respondent No. 3 was rejected by the Chairman of the Board by order (Annex-7) dated 3rd May, 1914. I and the name of respondent No. 3 was placed at S.No. 23 amongst Draughtsman Gr. II. It appears that respondent No. 3 made a representation against fixation of his seniority and claimed seniority over Shri S.N. Gupta. The said representation of respondent No. 3 was rejected by the Chairman of the Board by order (Annex-7) dated 3rd May, 1914. The said order dated 3rd May, 1974 was reviewed by the Chairman of the Board and by order (Annex-8) dated August 17/23, 1977, the Chairman of the Board set aside the earlier order dated 3rd May, 1974 and held that respondent No. 3 is senior to Shri S.N. Gupta, and further directed that all consequential benefits with effect from the date or dates on which Shri S.N. Gupta was promoted from time to time should be restored to respondent No. 3 as admissible under the next below rule. In pursuance of the aforesaid order of the chairman of the Board the order (Annex-9) dated August 20/23, 1977 was issued by the Secretary of the Board whereby respondent No. 3 was promoted as Head Draughtsman, Since the aforesaid order dated August 17/23, 1977 passed by the Chairman of the Board and the order passed by the Secretary of the respondent Board dated August 20/13, 1977 have adversely affected the seniority of the petitioner vis-a-vis respondent No. 3, he has filed this writ petition wherein he has challenged the aforesaid orders. 6. As regards the order (Annex-8) dated August 17/23, 1977 passed by the Chairman of the Board it may be stated that in the said order the Chairman has observed that at during the relevant time when the posts of Tracer and Asstt. Draughtsman were respectively held by the respondent No. 3 and Shri S.N. Gupta, the said posts were governed by the Appendix to the Rajasthan Civil Service (Unification of Pay Scale) Rules and that under the said rules the post of Asstt. Draughtsman and Tracer appear at S. Nos. 16 & 17 respectively under the head 'Drawing Section' and that the pay scales of both the posts was the same, i.e Rs. 56-4-90-EB-5-120. The Chairman has expressed the view that the post of Tracer could not be held as a post of lower category than the post of Asstt. Draughtsman and Tracer appear at S. Nos. 16 & 17 respectively under the head 'Drawing Section' and that the pay scales of both the posts was the same, i.e Rs. 56-4-90-EB-5-120. The Chairman has expressed the view that the post of Tracer could not be held as a post of lower category than the post of Asstt. Draughtsman merely because it is numbered below the later and that identical pay scales for both these posts makes the post of Tracer equivalent to but not lower than the post of Asstt. Draughtsman. The Chairman has also found that respondent No. 1 was substantively appointed as Tracer with effect from 1st April, 1951 and that the authorities, under some mis-conceptions of the Rules, had incorrectly treated the post of Asstt. Draughtsman as a promotion post from the post of Tracer and granted an increment to respondent No. 3 but this would not mean that the post of Asstt. Draughtsman was a higher post. The chairman has also held that even if it be assumed for the sake of argument that the post of Tracer was lower than that of Asstt. Draughtsman, respondent No. 3 had a right to be promoted on the higher post on 28th January, 1952 in a regular vacancy which was given to Shri S.N. Gupta on work-charged basis by virtue of respondent No. 3 having been appointed substantially as Tracer with effect from 1st April, 1951 and the said vacancy could not have been given to a work-charged employees when substantive hand was available and that respondent No. 3 would have, therefore, got a chance of promotion to the post of Draughtsman Gr. II had he been correctly treated as substantive appointed on 1st April, 1951 and Draughtsman Gr. I earlier than Shri S.N. Gupta According to the Chairman the difference in the respective position of respondent No 3 and Shri S.N Gupta between 29th January. 1952 and 9th February, 1957 was not due to the fact that Shri Gupta was senior over respondent No. 3 but because the appointment of respondent No. 3 was regularised as Tracer with effect from 1st April, 1951, by order dated 9th August, 1968. The Chairman has also found that Shri Gupta was not selected for the post of Draugbtsman Gr. The Chairman has also found that Shri Gupta was not selected for the post of Draugbtsman Gr. 1 by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission in an open competition and that the concurrence of the Public Service Commission was obtained by the Chief Engineer for his appointment as a Draughtsman (Mechanical), which post was carrying lower scale than the post of Draughts-man Gr. I and the said concurrence was obtained on a letter containing particulars showing respondent No. 3 as junior. The Chairman, therefore, held that the case of respondent No. 2 falls under the next below rule in the language of service law because by virtue of his earlier substantive appointment with effect from 1st April, 1951 as Tracer he became senior to Shri S. N. Gupta whose date of appointment was 1st May, 1954 and for that reason the Chairman held that respondent No. 3 is senior to Shri Gupta and directed that all consequential benefits with effect from the date or dates on which Shri Gupta was promoted from time to time should be restored to respondent No. 3 as admissible under the next below rule' 7. Shri Singhvi, the learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to assail the said order (Annex-8) dated August 17/23, 1977 passed by the Chairman of the Board on the ground that the post of Tracer held by respondent No. 3 should not, be equated to the post of Asstt. Draughtsman held by Shri S.N. Gupta. In support of this submission Shri Singhvi has pointed that by order dated 1st February, 1955, respondent No. 3 had been promoted on the post of Asst Draughtsman which implies that the post of Asstt. Draughtsman was higher in rank to that of Tracer. In may view, the afore aid contention of Shri Singhvi cannot be accepted. The Chairman of the Board has been the posts of Tracer and Asstt Draughtsman as equivalent posts in view of the fact that under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Unification of Pay Scales) Rules, both the posts viz Asstt. Draughtsman and Tracer fall in the same pay scale, i.e. Rs. 56-4-90-EB-5-120, and equivalance of pay can be regarded as a proper criterion for the equation of the posts. Draughtsman and Tracer fall in the same pay scale, i.e. Rs. 56-4-90-EB-5-120, and equivalance of pay can be regarded as a proper criterion for the equation of the posts. In this connection reference may be made to Rule 35 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, which prescribes that "equal posts" mean post in the same cadre carrying identical time scales of pay. Since the posts of Asstt. Draughtsman and Tracer were carrying the same pay scales they have been rightly treated as equal posts by the Chairman of the Board and the said order of the Chairman cannot be held to be had on that account. 8. As regards the promotion of respondent No. 3 on the post of Asstt. Draughtsman vide order dated 1st February, 1955 it may be stated that the Chairman in his order has pointed out that the said order was passed under the misconceptions of the Rules by treating the post of Asstt. Draughtsman as a promotion host from the post of Tracer and the said order could not mean that the post of Tracer was not a post equivalent to the post of Asstt Draughtsman. In these circumstances. I find no infirmity in the order (Annex-8 dated August 17/23, 1977 made by the Chairman of the Board. 9. With regard to the order (Annex-9) dated August 20/23, 1917 made by the Secretary of the respondent Board promoting respondent No. 3 as a Head Draughtsman, Shri Singhvi has urged that before the date of the passing of the said order the respondent Board had issued a notification (Annex-10) dated 21st August, 1976 whereby it had notified the method of appointment by direct recruitment/promotion alongwith the qualifications and experience for the various categories of posts in the Drawing Branch and in respect of the post of Head Draughtsman it was prescribed that appointment was to be made on the said post from amongst Draughtsman Gr. I by promotion and that 5 years experience as Draughtsman Gr. I has been prescribed for qualified Draughtsman from the recognised institutions and 10 years experience as Draughtsman Gr. I has been prescribed for others. Shri Singhvi has urged that it has necessary to consider all Draughtsman Gr. I by promotion and that 5 years experience as Draughtsman Gr. I has been prescribed for qualified Draughtsman from the recognised institutions and 10 years experience as Draughtsman Gr. I has been prescribed for others. Shri Singhvi has urged that it has necessary to consider all Draughtsman Gr. I before any order for promotion on the post of Head Draughtsman could be passed and that the impugned order (Annex-9) dated 20/23, August, 1977 for promotion of respondent No 3 as Head Draughtsman, was passed without considering the case of the petitioner, even though he was eligible for appointment on the post of Head Draughtsman on the date. Shri C.K. Garg the learned Counsel for the Board has however submitted that the notification dated August 21, 1976, which prescribes the method of appointment by direct recruitment/promotion alongwith the qualifications and experience required for the various categories of posts in the Drawing Branch, has no application to the promotion of respondent No. 3 as Head Draughtsman under the order (Annex-9) dated August 20.3.1977, because the said promotion of respondent No. 3 as Head Draughtsman has been made with retrospective effect in consequence to the order (Annex-8) dated August 17/23, 1971 passed by the Chairman of the respondent Board whereby respondent No. 3 has been treated as senior to Shri S.N. Gupta and it has been further held that the case of respondent No. 3 is covered by the 'next below rule' and in view of the said rule respondent No. 3 is entitled to the same promotions which were granted to Shri S N. Gupta from the date or dates on which Shri S. N. Gupta was promoted. Shri Garg has pointed that since Shri S. N. Gupta was promoted as Head Draughtsman on 20th February, 1957, respondent No. 3 is entitled to be promoted as Head Draughtsman with effect from the said date and at that time the petitioner was not even in the service and, therefore, there was no question of his being considered for promotion on the post of Head Draughtsman while the question of promotion of respondent No. 3 on the said post was under consideration. Against this Shri Singhvi has urged that there is nothing in the order (Annex-9) dated August 20/23, 1977 to show that respondent No 3 was being promoted as Head Draughtsman retrospectively with effect from an earlier date and in the absence of any such indication in the order, the promotion of respondent No. 3 as Head Draughtsman should be treated to have been made with effect from the date of the passing of the order (Annex-9) dated August 20/23, 1977. 10. It is true that in the order (Annex-9) dated August 20/23, 1977 it has not been expressly mentioned that the promotion that has been given to respondent No. 3 on the post of Head Draughtsman has been given with retrospective effect from an earlier date. But in the paid order it has been stated that the said promotion was being given to respondent No. 3 consequence upon decision given by the Chairman in his order dated 20th August, 1977, whereby respondent No. 3 has been treated as senior to Shri S.N. Gupta, Head Draughtsman. This would show that the order (Ant ex-9) is in the nature of consequential order passed by way of implementation of the order (Annex-8) dated August 11/23, 1977, passed by the Chairman of the Board, from a perusal of the order (Annex-8) dated August 17/23, 1977, it is evident that the Chairman has directed that respondent No. 3 is to be treated as senior to Shri S.N. Gupta and is covered by the 'next below rule' and that consequential benefits with effect from the date or dates on which his junior Shri S.N. Gupta, was promoted from time to time should be restored to respondent No. 3 as admissible under the 'next below rule'. This would mean that respondent No. 3 has to be promoted as Draughtsman Gr. II, Draughtsman Gr. I and Head Draughtsman with effect from the dates on which Shri S. N. Gupta was so promoted and in that view of the matter the order (Annex-9) dated August 20/23, 1977 should be construed to mean that the respondent No. 3 has been promoted as Head Draughtsman with effect from 20th February, 1957, the date on which Shri S.N. Gupta was so promoted. Since the said promotion is to be treated as being made with effect from a day earlier than the notification dated August 21, 1976, the conditions laid down in the said notification can have no application to the said promotion and the said promotion can not be challenged on the ground that it was not made in accordance with the said notification On 20th Feb., 1957 the petitioner was not even in service and, therefore, have no locus standi to challenge the promotion of respondent No. 3 as Head Draughtsman with effect from 20th February, 1957. No other contention has been urged by Shri Singhvi. Thus I find no merit in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed, There will be no order as to cost.Petition Dismissed. *******