JUDGMENT Special leave granted. 2. Heard counsel for the appellant, the contesting respondent No.5 and the Delhi Administration. The grievance of the appellant is that although he was senior respondent No. 5 Vasu Chimani, he was not placed in the selection grade while his junior was granted that very scale. To support his contention of seniority, our attention was drawn to Annexure A appended to the affidavit of January 4, 1982 (page 21). That document shows that the appellant was appointed on 1st November 1972, whereas the respondent No. 5 was appointed on 1st May 1973. This would show that he was senior to respondent No. 5. It is obvious from the clarification issued by the director or Education dated 4th April 1973, Annexure AA(page 22) that Selection Grade to teachers was to be given on the basis of seniority, subject to fitness. The expression fitness means that there should not be any adverse entry in the Character Rolls of the concerned person at least three years and no disciplinary proceeding should be pending against him. So far as the appellant is concerned indisputably there was no adverse entry in his C.R. nor was any disciplinary proceeding pending against him. Therefore, he was clearly fit to be placed in the Selection Grade and since he was senior to respondent No. 6, it is difficult to understand how his claims was by passed. 3. It was said that he was declared surplus, and, therefore, he was not entitled to be placed in the Selection Grade. There are to difficulties in accepting this contention. Firstly he was senior to respondent No. 5, then he ought not to have been declared surplus. Secondly, even according to R.47(4) of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, he was entitled to carry his seniority to the school he was posted on being declared surplus. Therefore, he being declared surplus he could not lose his seniority. So far as the qualification go, it is clear from Annexxure A (page 21) that he was M.A., B.Sc.,(Ag), M.ed whereas the respondent No.5 was B.A., B.Ed.. This shows that he was better qualified than respondent No.5 and even on that ground he was entitled to be placed in selection grade. 4. So far as the qualification go, it is clear from Annexxure A (page 21) that he was M.A., B.Sc.,(Ag), M.ed whereas the respondent No.5 was B.A., B.Ed.. This shows that he was better qualified than respondent No.5 and even on that ground he was entitled to be placed in selection grade. 4. For the above reason we are of the opinion that he was wrongly bypassed and he ought to have been placed in the Selection Grade on the date his junior, respondent No.5 was placed therein. We direct that he be placed in the Selection Grade w.e.f the date his junior, respondant No. 5 was granted all monetary benefits accruing from such placement within a period of three months from today. The appeal is allowed accordingly, with no order as to costs. Appeal allowed. For Citation: AIR 1991 SC 1924