JUDGMENT S.N. Sahay, J. - This is a petition for issuing a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Labour Court, Lucknow, dated October 31, 1987 (Annexure-4), and a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to consider the seniority of A.M. Aslam, opposite party No.3, in accordance with the gradation list and promote him to the next higher post of Senior Clerk with effect from January 8, 1974. 2. There was an industrial dispute between the petitioner, U.P. State Agro Industrial Corporation Ltd., and two workmen namely, A.M. Aslam opposite party No.3 and P.N. Sharma regarding promotion as Senior Clerk. The dispute was referred by the State Government to the Labour Court, Lucknow by order, dated April 25, 1985. The case of the workmen was that A.M. Aslam and P.N. Sharma were appointed as Junior Clerks in the pay scale of Rs.100-180. A.M. Aslam was appointed with effect from July 22, 1968 and P.N. Sharma was appointed with effect from September 23, 1968. Both of them were posted in Tal Katora Workshop of the petitioner Corporation. However, D.S. Rawat and seven others who were junior to the above named two workmen were arbitrarily promoted as Senior Clerks/Office Assistants and were placed above them. The workmen accordingly asserted that they were entitled for promotion to the post of Office Assistant with all benefits attached to that post with effect from the date on which their juniors were promoted. The petitioner Corporation denied that juniors were promoted ignoring the claim of the workmen concerned. It was asserted that all promotions had been made according to seniority. It was also submitted that in the absence of service rules it was decided that promotions would be made on the basis of seniority of the employees in each Division/Department in which they were working. In this connection, the petitioner Corporation relied upon a circular issued by the Managing Director of the Corporation on October 7, 1971. It was also contended that a combined gradation list of all the clerks of the petitioner Corporation was prepared and finalised. The seniority was counted from the date when the incumbents took over as Senior Clerks. In this list A.M. Aslam was shown at Serial No.15 and P.N. Sharma was show at Serial No.16 and both of them were given seniority with effect from January 8, 1974. The seniority was counted from the date when the incumbents took over as Senior Clerks. In this list A.M. Aslam was shown at Serial No.15 and P.N. Sharma was show at Serial No.16 and both of them were given seniority with effect from January 8, 1974. The claim of the workmen was thus repudiated by the petitioner Corporation and it was asserted that the seniority of the workmen is to be determined and their promotions are to be made in accordance with the gradation list so prepared. 3. The Labour Court found that A.M. Aslam was appointed as Junior Clerk on July 22, 1968. P.N. Sharma was appointed as Junior Clerk by order, dated September 23, 1968 but there was no evidence to show as to when he took over as Junior Clerk, D.S. Rawat and others joined later as Junior Clerks and as such they are junior to A.M. Aslam. It was further held that the petitioner Corporation did not adduce any evidence to prove the circular, dated October 7, 1971. It was not shown as to how the combined seniority list was prepared nor any rule was cited in support on the criteria on the basis of which this list was prepared. A.M. Aslam had made representation against the provisional gradation list and no order was passed on his representation before finalising the gradation list. Therefore, it was held that the gradation list had not become final and it was wrong to deny promotions to the workmen on the basis of that list. It was also held that there was no basis for allotting the date of January 8, 1974 to A.M. Aslam for counting seniority. If he was not appointed as Senior Clerk earlier it was the fault of the Corporation and not that of Aslam. In this view of the matter the Labour Court held that A.M. Aslam is entitled to be considered from the date of his joining as Junior Clerk and if this date is taken into account, then he became senior to all the officials, D.S. Rawat and others. The Labour Court rejected the claim of P.N. Sharma and allowed the claim of A.M. Aslam and ordered that keeping the date of his joining as Junior Clerk as the guiding factor A.M. Aslam will be placed at a proper place as Senior Clerk/Office Assistant in the gradation list prepared by the petitioner Corporation. The Labour Court rejected the claim of P.N. Sharma and allowed the claim of A.M. Aslam and ordered that keeping the date of his joining as Junior Clerk as the guiding factor A.M. Aslam will be placed at a proper place as Senior Clerk/Office Assistant in the gradation list prepared by the petitioner Corporation. The Labour Court made an award accordingly. 4. It was urged on behalf of the petitioner Corporation that promotions are to be made according to Division-wise seniority in view of the Circular, dated October 7, 1971 issued by the Managing Director and hence the seniority of the employees including the opposite party No.3 is to be determined on the basis of the date of promotion. As already mentioned the Tribunal has not expressed any opinion with regard to this Circular because the petitioner did not produce any evidence to prove the same. Moreover, since the existence of the Circular is not in dispute, at present we may proceed to examine the Circular and determined its nature and effect. 5. The Circular refers to a resolution which was passed by the Board of Directors delegating powers to various officers of the Corporation. The resolution has not been produced by the Corporation and it cannot be said that the copy of the Circular which has been filed as Annexure-I to the writ petition, is a complete document. However, the Circular issued by the Managing Director contains a direction that the powers delegated by the Board of Directors shall be exercised by the concerned officers subject to the restrictions contained in the circular. One of such restrictions has been imposed with regard to promotions and it is provided that promotions in each category of employees shall be made on the basis of seniority of the employs in the Division or Department concerned. It will, be seen that in making such a provision in ad-hoc administrative arrangements has been made for making promotions. The authority under which the restrictions were imposed by the Managing Director has not been disclosed. It is not shown that the above restriction was imposed by the Board of Directors or was imposed by the Managing Director under authority derived by him from the rules and regulations governing the affairs of the Corporation. The authority under which the restrictions were imposed by the Managing Director has not been disclosed. It is not shown that the above restriction was imposed by the Board of Directors or was imposed by the Managing Director under authority derived by him from the rules and regulations governing the affairs of the Corporation. There is a reference to each category of employees (Pratyek varg ke karmchari) but it has not been shown that Division-wise cadres of employees were, constituted in place of the existing cadres. The seniority of an employee in the cadre cannot be affected by the posting in a particular Division or Department of the Corporation and by the promotion of the employee on the basis of such posting in that Division or Department. If a person does not get a chance of promotion in a Division, earlier than his counterpart junior to him working in another Division, then the former cannot be allowed to suffer for no fault of his. U it happens it will be arbitrary and unreasonable, The service conditions of an employee cannot be altered to his prejudice by the administrative instructions issued by the Managing Director with regard to the manner in which promotions are to be made in a particular Division or Department of the Corporation. In my opinion the Circular, dated October 7, 1971 (Annexured to the writ petition) cannot impair the seniority of the employees in their respective cadres. 6. It is an admitted fact that there were no service rules at the time when the above mentioned Circular was issued. The service rata came into existence in 1984. It is conceded (% behalf of the petitioner that there is nothing a the service rules which may have any effect on the determination of seniority of the employee at an early date. It has been held in Union of India v. Ansueckar Guin & Ors., 1989 1 C.L.R. 141 S.C., that in the absence of Service Rules, seniority is to be fixed on the basis of length of continuous service. Counting continuous length of service for fixation of seniority is a well accepted rule, when the service Rules does not prescribe the mode of fixing inter se seniority. Counting continuous length of service for fixation of seniority is a well accepted rule, when the service Rules does not prescribe the mode of fixing inter se seniority. The Labour Court has recorded a clear cut finding to the effect that A.M. Aslam, opposite party No.3, was appointed as a Junior Clerk on July 22, 1968 and he is senior to D.S. Rawat and others who joined later as Junior Clerks. The finding is not shown to be erroneous and therefore I am of the view that the Labour Court was right in determining the seniority of opposite party No.3 on the basis of the date of joining as Junior Clerk in the cadre to which he belongs. The seniority of opposite party No.3 cannot be affected by the Circular of the Managing Director, dated October 7, 1971 and cannot be determined on the basis of the date of promotion, contended on behalf of the petitioner. There is no justification to count the seniority of opposite party No.3 with effect from January 8, 1974 as shown in the combined gradation list prepared by the petitioner. The Award of the Labour Court does not suffer from any legal infirmity and no interference is called for. 7. The result is that this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.