ORDER 1. The petitioners in both these petitions are working as Supply the Department of Food and Civil Supplies, U.P. Their grievance although their juniors have been promoted to the next higher post Inspectors they have been deliberately left out although they were promotion. In other words according to them the action of Government in promoting their juniors in reference to them without any ostensible reason is clearly arbitrary and violative of Article Constitution. It appears that the State Government has not taken the matter seriously. Before we issued rule nisi, notice was issued to the State Government to show cause but it failed to do so. Unfortunately the counsel for the State of U.P. was not given the necessary instructions by the concerned officers of the department. We are, therefore, constrained to issue rule nisi by our order dated 9-8-1990. While issuing rule nisi we directed that no further promotion should be made without the express permission of this Court. Even thereafter no counter was filed on behalf of the State Government till 16-7-1991 on which date we made the following order: "Mrs Shobha Dikshit, the learned counsel for the State of U.P., has pointed out that in view of the change in Government in that State and the consequential change in bureaucracy, she has not been able to obtain instructions and file an additional affidavit. We are not impressed by this submission for the reason that when rule nisi was issued on 9-8-1990, a similar request was made. However, having regard to the state of affairs and the change mentioned to, we would like to give counsel one further and last opportunity by postponing the hearing of the petition by four weeks on condition that the State of U.P. pays Rs 2000 to the petitioner by way of cost within ten days from today. Affidavit may be filed within four weeks and the matter may come up for hearing in the fifth week." 2. Surprisingly, the State Government now informs this Court by a counter-affidavit filed by Shri G.K. Mathur, Marketing Inspector in the office of the Commissioner of Food and Civil Supplies, Lucknow, U.P., that the tentative seniority list of the Supply Clerks dated 16-6-1989 has since been cancelled by the order dated 22-8-1991. Surprisingly, the State Government now informs this Court by a counter-affidavit filed by Shri G.K. Mathur, Marketing Inspector in the office of the Commissioner of Food and Civil Supplies, Lucknow, U.P., that the tentative seniority list of the Supply Clerks dated 16-6-1989 has since been cancelled by the order dated 22-8-1991. The counsel for the petitioners submit that this was merely a device to overreach this Court without informing this Court as to how the State Government promoted persons who were juniors to the petitioners from time to time in total disregard to their seniority. We find from the counter of Shri Mathur that no serious attempt has been made to meet the main allegation of the petitioners that their juniors were promoted out of turn disregarding their claims to promotions to the higher post of Supply Inspectors. In other words the contention made by the petitioners in these petitions has not been met. 3. No one appears on behalf of the State. Government to explain the position. Annexures P-4 and P-5 appended to the Writ Petition No. 1128 of 1990 clearly show that the allegation made by the petitioners is well founded. There is nothing in the counter to suggest that the position emerging from Annexures P-4 and P-5 is not correct. In the circumstances we think that the petitioners have established their allegation that their claims were bypassed and their juniors were promoted on thoroughly ad hoc .sis. We think that is not in" keeping with the spirit of Article 14 of the Constitution. 4. In the result these petitions must succeed. We allow the writ petitions and make the rule nisi absolute by directing that State Government to promote the petitioners from the date on which their juniors were promoted to the next higher post of Supply Inspector with all benefits accruing to them, if necessary, by supernumerary posts. In view of the above order the interim stay against future promotions will stand vacated. The State of U.P. will carry out this order in the present writ petitions within three months from today. 5. We need not make any order on IAs Nos. 4 and 5 of 1991 in view of the fact that we have vacated the interim order and hence the impediment in the way of the applications does not survive. The State of U.P. will carry out this order in the present writ petitions within three months from today. 5. We need not make any order on IAs Nos. 4 and 5 of 1991 in view of the fact that we have vacated the interim order and hence the impediment in the way of the applications does not survive. Therefore, the applicants will be entitled to such benefits as has been granted to them subject to the order passed in the writ petitions. No order as to costs.