JUDGMENT 1. - In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner, Sukhveer Chand Singhvi, has challenged the validity of the order (Ex. 11) dated August 17/23, 1977, passed by the Chairman of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Respondent Board') and the order (Ex. 12) dated August 20/23, 1977, passed by the Secretary of the Respondent Board with regard to the promotion of Respondent No. 2 Suresh Prasad Bhatnaear as Head Draftsman. In the writ petition the petitioner has also Challenged the validity of the orders (Ex. 15 and Ex. 16) dated 5th December, 1977, whereby Respondent No. 3 Ram Swaroup Sharma and Respondent No. 4 Ram Sharan Sharma have been promoted on the post of Head Draftsman. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Draughtsman Gr. II with the respondent Board vide order dated 25th November, 1959. He was a promoted temporarily as Draughtsman Gr. I by order dated 29th March, 1966 He was treated as confirmed on the post of Draftsman Gr. I with effect from 31st March, 1969 as per the settlement dated 16th February, 1971 between the Prantiya Vidyut Mandal Mazdoor Federation and the respondent Board. 3. Suresh Prasad Bhatnagar, respondent No. 2, was initially appointed as Tracer on work charged basis in the earstwhile Electrical and Mechanical Department of the Government of Rajasthan and he joined the said post on 1st April, 1951. He was promoted as Asstt. Draughtsman by order dated 9th July, 1955. By order dated 29th July, 1961 he was promoted on the post of Draughts-man Gr I. By Order (Ex. 11) dated August 17/23, 1977 passed by the Chairman of the Respondent Board it was directed that the said respondent was senior to S. M. Gupta and that all consequential benefits with effect from the date or dates on which his junior S. N. Gupta was promoted from time to time, should be restored. to respondent No. 2 as admissible under the next below rule'. In consequence to the said decision the order (Ex. 11) dated August 20/23, 1977 was issued by the Secretary of the respondent Board whereby, treating respondent No. 2 as senior to S.N. Gupta, the said respondent was promoted as Head Draughtsman. 4. to respondent No. 2 as admissible under the next below rule'. In consequence to the said decision the order (Ex. 11) dated August 20/23, 1977 was issued by the Secretary of the respondent Board whereby, treating respondent No. 2 as senior to S.N. Gupta, the said respondent was promoted as Head Draughtsman. 4. Ramswaroop Sharma, respondent No. 3 was initially appointed as Work-charged Draughtsman in the earstwhile Electrical and Mechanical Department of the Government of Rajasthan and he joined the said post on 26th June, 1956. He was promoted as Draughtsman Gr. 1 by order dated 29th July, 1961. By order dated 18th September, 1974. The said respondent was promoted as Circle Head Draughtsman and his services were placed on deputation at the disposal of the Chief Engineer (Electrical) Beas Project. Subsequently, by order (Ex. 15) dated 5th December, 1977 he was given proforma promotion on as Head Draughtsman in Beas Construction Board against the quota of the respondent Board with immediate effect. 5. Ram Sharan Sharma, respondent No. 4, was appointed as Draughtsman Gr. 1 alongwith the petitioner by order dated 25th November, 1959. He was promoted as Draughtsman Gr. 1 alongwith the petitioner by order dated 29th March, 1976 By order (Ex. 16) dated 5th December, 1977 he has been promoted as Head Draughtsman. 6. By circular dated 20th November, 1967 a provisional seniority list of Drawing Staff (Head Draughtsman Gr. I & II) as on 31-12-1966, was published. In the said seniority list, in the carde of Draughtsman Gr. 1, respondent No. 2 was shown at S. No. 4, respondent No. 3 was shown at S.No. 4, respondent No. 4, was shown at S. No. 12 and the petitioner was shown at S.No. 13. Subsequently, another seniority list of Head Draughtsman, Draughtsman Gr. I and Draughtsman Gr. II working as on 1st July, 1961 was notified by Circular dated 22nd June, 1972. In the said seniority list the name of the respondent No. 4 was shown at S.No. 14 the petitioner was shown at S.No. 5 and the names of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were shown at S. No. 23 and 24 respectively in the cadre of Draughtsman Gr. II. In the said seniority list the name of the respondent No. 4 was shown at S.No. 14 the petitioner was shown at S.No. 5 and the names of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were shown at S. No. 23 and 24 respectively in the cadre of Draughtsman Gr. II. It may be stated that the said seniority list was issued during the pendency of S B Civil Writ Petition No. 1721 of 1970 filed by respondent No. 3 and the validity of the said seniority list was challenged by respondent No. 3. in the said Writ Petition. In the said writ petition a statement was made on behalf of respondent Board before this Court that the said seniority list would not be taken into consideration for the purpose of promotion and in view of that statement the said writ petition was withdrawn by respondent No. 3. 7. In so far as the orders (Ex. 11 and Ex. 12) are concerned it may be stated that the said orders relate to respondent No. 2. Suresh Prasad Bhatnagar and the validity of the said orders has also been challenged by on Lokeshwarnath in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 506 of 1977. The grounds of challenge raised by the petitioner are the same as those urged by Lokeshwarnath in his writ petition. The said grounds of challenge have been negatived by me in my decision in S B. Civil Writ Petition No. 106 of 1977 decided on this day reported in 1988(1) RLR 593 and for the same reason the challenge to the validity of these orders by the petitioner in this writ petition must be negatived. 8. With regard to the promotion of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 as Head Draughtsman under order (Ex. 15) and order (Ex. 16) dated 5th December, 1977 the main ground of challenge urged by the petitioner is that the petitioner is senior to the said respondents and t to promotion of respondents Nos. 3 and 4 who are junior to the petitioner as Head Draughtsman is, therefore, bad-in-law. 9. In so far as respondent No. 3 is concerned, as pointed out earlier, the said respondent joined as Draughtsman on 26th June, 1956 and he was promoted as Draughtsman Gr. I on 29th July, 1961 earlier than the petitioner who was promoted as Draughtsman Gr. 9. In so far as respondent No. 3 is concerned, as pointed out earlier, the said respondent joined as Draughtsman on 26th June, 1956 and he was promoted as Draughtsman Gr. I on 29th July, 1961 earlier than the petitioner who was promoted as Draughtsman Gr. I by order dated 29th March, 1955 Since respondent No. 3 was promoted as Draughtsman Gr. 1 much earlier than the petitioner it is difficult to appreciate how the petitioner is claiming to be senior to the said respondent. The only basis on which the petitioner claims to be senior to respondent No. 3 is the seniority list notified by Circular dated 22nd June, 1972 wherein the petitioner has been shown at S.No. 15 and respondent No. 3 was shown at S. No. 24 in the cadre of Draughtsman Gr. II. In this regard it may be stated that the said seniority list was on 1-7-1961 i.e. prior to the passing of the order dated 29th July, 1961 whereby respondent No. 3 was promoted as Draughtsman Gr. I. Moreover, the said seniority list cannot be acted upon in view of the statement made by the counsel for the respondent Board in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.506 of 1977 filed by respondent No.3, that the said seniority list would not be acted upon in the matter of promotion to the higher post. It is therefore, not open to the petitioner to avail the promotion of respondent No. 3 on the post of Head Draughtsman on the ground that he has shown senior to respondent No. 3 in the seniority list notified by circular dated 22nd June, 1972. In this connection it may also be stated that prior to the seniority list notified by circular dated 22nd June, 1972 as seniority list of Head Draughtsman and Draughtsman Gr. I as on 31st December, 1966, had been issued vide Circular dated 20th November, 1967 and in the said seniority list the petitioner has been placed junior to respondent No. 3 in the cadre of Draughtsman Gr. II in the reply filed on behalf of respondent Board it has been stated that the petitioner has not challenged the said seniority list. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts the circumstances, it is not possible to accept the contention of the petitioner that he is senior to respondent No. 3 and the promotion of respondent No. 3 as Head Dr. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts the circumstances, it is not possible to accept the contention of the petitioner that he is senior to respondent No. 3 and the promotion of respondent No. 3 as Head Dr. Draughtsman under order (Ex. 15) dated 5th December 1977 was bad-in-law on that account. 10. As regards the respondent No. 4 it may be stated that both the petitioner and respondent No. 4 were appointed as Draughtsman Gr. II by order dated 25th November, 1959 are both of them were promoted as Draughtsman Gr. I vide order dated 29th March, 1966. The petitioner claims to be senior to respondent No. 4 on the ground that his name is placed before the name of respondent No. 4 on the order dated 25th November, 1959, for appointment on the post of Draughtsman Gr. II, and his name was shown at S.No. 1 and respondent No. 2 was shown at S.No. 2 in the order dated 29th March, 1966 for petitioner on the post of Draughtsman Gr.1. The petitioner also claims to be senior to respondent No. 4 on the ground that he joined as Draughtsman Gr. II on 26th November, 1959 whereas respondent No. 4 joined as Draftsman Gr. II subsequently on 30th November, 1959. It may, however be mentioned that in the seniority list of Head Draughtsman and Draughtsman Gr. I as on 31st December, 1966 which was notified vide Circular dated 20th November, 1967, respondent No. 4 was shown senior to the petitioner presumably on the ground that respondent No. 4 is elder to the petitioner. The date of birth of respondent No. 4 as mentioned in the said seniority list is 10 March, 1939 whereas the date of birth of petitioner is 11th November, 1941. In the final seniority list which was issued vide circular dated 27th June, 1972 also respondent No. 4 has been shown as senior to the petitioner. The petitioner has never challenged the aforesaid seniority lists. 11. Shri Keshote has however, urged that amongst persons who are appointed on the same date the critarion for fixation of the seniority should be the order in which their names appear in the appointment order and on that basis the petitioner should be treated as senior to respondent No. 4. The petitioner has never challenged the aforesaid seniority lists. 11. Shri Keshote has however, urged that amongst persons who are appointed on the same date the critarion for fixation of the seniority should be the order in which their names appear in the appointment order and on that basis the petitioner should be treated as senior to respondent No. 4. Shri Keshote has also urged that the petitioner is entitled to claim seniority over respondent No. 4 also on the ground that petitioner had joined duty as Draughtsman Gr. II earlier than respondent No. 4. In my opinion the date of joining cannot be made the basis for fixation of inter-se-seniority amongst persons appointed by a common order because a person who receives the appointment order earlier may be able to join duty earlier than the person who receives the appointment order on the later date and the date of receipt of the appointment order may depend on various fortuitous circumstances. The fact that the name of the petitioner precedes the name of respondent No. 4 in the appointment order dated 25th November, 1959 cannot also afford a basis for treating the petitioner as senior to respondent No. 4 unless it can be said that in the appointment order the names were arranged in the order of merit. The order (Ex.6) dated 25th November, 1959 does not however, indicate that names of petitioner and respondent No. 4 were arranged in the order of merit. 12. In the matter of fixation of inter-se-seniority of persons appointed on the same date the date of birth has many times been taken as the critarion and this appears to have been the basis for placing respondent No. 4 as senior to the petitioner. In adopting, the said critarion for the purpose of fixing the inter-se-seniority of the petitioner to respondent No. 4 the respondent Board cannot be held to have acted arbitrarily or unreasonably. In the circumstances, it is not possible to uphold the contention of the petitioner that he was senior to respondent No 4 in the cadre of Draftsman Gr. I. 13. Shri Keshote has next urged that even if it be held that respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were senior to the petitioner in the cadre of Draftsman Gr. In the circumstances, it is not possible to uphold the contention of the petitioner that he was senior to respondent No 4 in the cadre of Draftsman Gr. I. 13. Shri Keshote has next urged that even if it be held that respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were senior to the petitioner in the cadre of Draftsman Gr. 1, seniority is only one of the considerations to be borne in mind for promotion to the higher post of Head Draftsman and that it was incumbent upon the authorities to have considered the case of the petitioner before taking the decision to promote respondents Nos. 3 and 4 on the post of Head Draftsman. In support of his aforesaid submission Shri Keshote has invited my attention to regulation 27 (2) of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board (Technical workmen) Service Regulations 1975, which provides that in selecting candidates for promotion due regard shall be given to their (i) seniority, (ii) previous record of service, (iii) qualifications and knowledge, (iv) integrity, and (v) tact, energy and intelligence In this connection it may be stated that the promotion of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 under orders dated 5th November, 1977 on the post of Head Draftsman has been made purely on adhoc basis and it has also been made without prejudice to the seniority claim of others. Moreover, in the reply that has been filed on behalf of the respondent Board it has been stated that according to the number of posts eligible candidates were duly considered. There is no rebuttal by the petitioner of the aforesaid reply filed on behalf of the respondent Board. It must, therefore, be held that while issuing the orders of promotion of respondents No. 3 and 4 on the post of Head Draftsman all eligible candidates were considered. In the circumstances, I find no infirmity in the orders with regard to the promotion of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 on the post of Head Draftsman. 14. No other contention has been urged by Shri Keshote. 15. In the result the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.Petition Dismissed. *******