JUDGMENT 1. - The question which arises for determination in this writ petition is as to whether petitioner has a right to be promoted as Deputy Director (Documents) in the Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur on the basis of his seniority in the Documents Division only and whether the candidature of persons belonging to other divisions be ignored. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, who possesses qualifications of M.Sc. and Ph. D (Chemistry) and has got 6 years training, ws appointed as Assistant Director (Documents) in the service of State of Rajasthan Forensic Sciency Laboratory after he was selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission for the said post in the year 1975. In the seniority list of Assistant Directors (Documents Division) of the Police Forensic Science Laboratory, name of the petitioner has been shown at S.No. 2 below Shri F.C. Puri. 3. Recruitment to the posts in the Police Forensic Science Laboratory and the conditions of service of the persons appointed to these posts are regulated by the provisions contained in Rajasthan Police Forensic Science Service Rules,1979 (for short 'the rules of 1979') which have been enacted under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Initially post of Deputy Director was not encadred in these service rules. No such post existed in the Department. In the year 1984 the Government issued and order dated February 8, 1984 whereby 2 posts of Assistant Directors in the scale No. 22 were decided to be upgraded to the posts of Deputy Directors in the scale No. 25. An amendment was, thereafter, made in 1979 rules' vide notification dated May 21,1986 and the post of Deputy Director came to be encadred in the Service Rules. Even before encadrement of the posts, Shri F.C. Puri and Shri R.C. Sharma were given urgent temporary promotion as Dy. Directors vide order dated 21.4.84. Shri F.C. Puri discharged his duties as Deputy Director (Documents) and gave reports in that capacity under section 293 Criminal Procedure Code. 4. According to the petitioner the post of Deputy Director is a technical post and not an administrative post. These posts were created by way of upgradation of posts in Documents Division.There were 3 posts of Assistant Directors in the Documents Division. In other Divisions, there was only one post of Assistant Director. 4. According to the petitioner the post of Deputy Director is a technical post and not an administrative post. These posts were created by way of upgradation of posts in Documents Division.There were 3 posts of Assistant Directors in the Documents Division. In other Divisions, there was only one post of Assistant Director. In view of this, two posts of Deputy Directors were created by upgradation of the posts of Assistant Director (Documents). Therefore, only an Assistant Director (Documents) could be treated as eligible for promotion as Deputy Director. Notwithstanding this, when Shri F.C. Puri was promoted as Director, Foren sic Science Laboratory on 22.5.1989, charge of the post was given to Shri M.M. Tiwari, Assistant Director (Biology) on 14.6.1989. This was done notwithstanding the fact that Shri Tiwari is not at all qualified to hold the post of Deputy Director (Documents) and he does not fulfil the qualifications for promotion to the post of Deputy Director (Documents). The petitioner served a notice of demand for justice on 23.6.89. No reply was received by him. Apprehending that DPC is likely to meet for making promotion to the post of Deputy Director, he filed writ petition claiming that no person other than those holding the post of Assistant Director (Documents) should be treated as eligible for promotion to the post of Deputy Director (Documents). The petitioner is the senior most person in the cadre of Assistant Director (Documents) and therefore, he has a right to be promoted as Deputy Director (Documents). 5. The petitioner's case is that action of the respondents in not considering his case for promotion is clearly violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as also the provisions of 1979 rules'. If promotions are made to the posts of Dy. Director (Documents) by considering candidature of persons holding posts of Assistant Director in other Divisions, serious anamoly will be created because once an Assistant Director from any other division than the documents division is promoted, the post of Assistant Director will no more remain available in that Division and the Senior Scientific Officer of that Division will never get an opportunity of promotion as Assistant Director till the person who is promoted as Deputy Director either retires or is promoted to the next higher post. 6. 6. Respondents No.1 and 2 have filed reply to the writ petition in which they have stated that the order dated 8.2.84 is clear and unambiguous. Two general posts of Deputy Directors have been created under the reorganisation scheme. These two posts do not belong to any particular division. These general posts are being filled in by promotion from amongst Senior Assistant Directors of all the divisions. If posts are created for separate division, specific indication of the particular division is given in the order by which the post is created. No such indication has been given in respect of two posts of Deputy Directors. There is no post of Deputy Director (Documents). Therefore, the claim of the petitioner for exclusive consideration for promotion to the post of Deputy Director is untenable. Shri F.C. Puri was promoted as Deputy Director only and not as Deputy Director (Document).At the time of promotion of Shri F.C. Puri, the seniority list of Assistant Directors of all divisions, which was issued on 4.4.84, was taken into consideration. Another seniority list was issued on 26.2.89. Shri F.C.Puri and Shri R.C. Sharma were promoted because they were the senior most Assistant Directors. Shri F.C. Puri had signed the documents as Deputy Director and the words (Documents Division) were used only in order to indicate designation of Deputy Director and to clarify his identity. Similarly when Shri Puri signed documents in relation to purely administrative work, he signed them by the designation Deputy Director (Administration). Thus more use of words "Documents Division" or the use of the word "Administration" is not indicative of the nature of the post but is only indicative of the identification of the officer. According to respondents No.1 and 2 seniority list dated 25.9.1980 is totally irrelevant for the purpose of promotion to the post of Deputy Director. Shri M.M. Tiwari was given the charge of the post of Deputy Director because he is the next senior most person in the seniority list of Assistant Directors of Division.The name of the petitioner is much below that of Dr. M.M. Tiwari and therefore, he cannot make any grievance against promotion of Shri M.M. Tiwari. The respondent No.3 and 4 have also filed a separate reply. Their reply is more or less similar to the reply of the respondents No.1 and 2. M.M. Tiwari and therefore, he cannot make any grievance against promotion of Shri M.M. Tiwari. The respondent No.3 and 4 have also filed a separate reply. Their reply is more or less similar to the reply of the respondents No.1 and 2. They have also come out with the case that the promotion to the post of Deputy Director is required to be made on the basis of the common seniority list. The petitioner has not challenged the common seniority lists issued on 4.4.84 or on 22.6.89 and therefore, he must be deemed to have waived his right to claim any precedence over the respondents No.3 and 4. 7. In his rejoinder the petitioner has stated that the only seniority list which is relevant for the purpose of promotion to the post of Deputy Director is the one issued on 25.9.80. Other seniority lists are irrelevant. He has reiterated his stand that the posts of Deputy Directors belong to the documents division and are not administrative posts. 8. A perusal of the schedule appended to the rules of 1979 shows that upto 215.86 the highest posts in the service was that of Director. The next lower post was that of Assistant Director. The cadre of Assistant Director is divided into different divisions and the post of Assistant Director in each of the Division is filled from amongst the Senior Scientific Officers of that particular division who fulfills the requirements of experience of 5 years. By notification dated 21.5.86 post of Deputy Director came to be encadred at S.No.1-A in the schedule. In column No.3 of the schedule it is indicated that the post of Deputy Director is required to be filled 100% by promotion. As per column No.5 Assistant Directors of all divisions are eligible provided that they possess experience specified in column No. 7. 9. By order dated 8.2.84 posts in different divisions were created. This included the posts of Assistant Director and Senior Scientific Officer in Documents Division, Senior Scientific Officer and other posts in Cerology Division, Physics Division, Ballistic Division and Photography Section. The post of Deputy Directors were created in the general heading. The relevant portion of the order dated 8.2.84 reads as under: "F. General : (i) Two posts of the Assistant Director in Scale No.22 are upgraded to the posts of Deputy Directors. The post of Deputy Directors were created in the general heading. The relevant portion of the order dated 8.2.84 reads as under: "F. General : (i) Two posts of the Assistant Director in Scale No.22 are upgraded to the posts of Deputy Directors. The upgraded posts of Dy.Director shall be in the pay scale No.25 i.e. 1920-2500 and shall be filled in after laying down the experience and qualifications in the Recruitment Rules in consultation with D.O.P. (ii) For Dy.Directors: (a) Steno typist (LDC), 2 9 -do- (b) Attendants (Class IV) 2 2 -do- (c) Drivers 4, 5 -do- Notes: The posts of Drivers would be subject to availability of equal number of additional vehicles." 10. This is clear from the order of the Government dated 8.2.84 that the two general post of Deputy Directors were created. The amendment made under the rules vide notification dated 21.5.1986 clearly reflects the intention of the rule making authority to keep these posts of Deputy Director as general posts and to fill them from amongst the Assistant Directors of all Divisions. From Annexure 8 issued by the office of the Director General of Police which relates to distribution of work amongst two posts of Deputy Directors, it is clearly revealed that the Deputy Directors were required to discharge the administrative duties and not technical duties. One post was meant for administrative work and the other for the accounts work. This order Annexure 8 dated 16/17.5.84 further establish that the posts of Deputy Directors are general posts and not the posts encadred in a particular division. If the rule making authority had intended that the post of Deputy Directors should be confined to the documents Division, a specific indication of the same would have been given in the amendment notification dated 215.86. Moreover, if the word 'Documents Division' are to be read after the post of Deputy Director in the notification dated 21.5.86, it will have two consequences. Firstly the Court will be required to read certain additional words in the rule, which do not exist. Secondly the Column No-5 have to be read as Assistant Directors (Documents Division) and thus there will be a substitution of the word in the schedule appended to the rules of 1979. Firstly the Court will be required to read certain additional words in the rule, which do not exist. Secondly the Column No-5 have to be read as Assistant Directors (Documents Division) and thus there will be a substitution of the word in the schedule appended to the rules of 1979. It is one of the principles of interpretation of statutes that the Court will not interpret a statutory provision which would lead to addition or substitution of the words or render some words of the statutes as surplus or redundant. It is also settled principle of interpretation that full effect has to be given to the language used in the particular statutes unless that interpretation leads to absurd results. In my opinion full effect must be given to the language of the amendment notification dated 21.5.86 and no absurd or anamolous (sic) result is achieved by giving full effect to the plain language used in amendment notification and there is no warrant for addition or substitution of the words in the schedule. 11. The argument of Shri Rastogi is that Shri F.C. Puri had designated him- self as Deputy Director (Documents) and discharge the duties in that capacity is not well founded. Shri F.C. Puri had undoubtedly been promoted as Dy. Director vide order dated 21.4.84. That order contains the designation of Shri F.C. Puri in the Documentation Division and Shri R.C. Sharma in Chemistry Division. Shri F.C. Puri held this post of Deputy Director till his promotion as Director. He had signed the papers in the capacity of Dy.Director and the use of the words "Documents Division" only indicated his identity. On other occasion he had signed the document as Deputy Director (Administration). This is evident from perusal of the Annexure R-3- 4/5 and R-3 - 4/6. These documents also show the identity of the person signing documents. Thus from these documents which have been signed by Shri F.C. Puri with different designation it is not established that he was promoted to the post of Deputy Director (Documents) or that he was promoted as Deputy Director (Administration) and no post of Deputy Director was created with these designations. 12. Equally untenable is the argument of Shri Rastogi that the post of Deputy. Director if not filled from the Assistant Director (Documents Division) and is filled from amongst the Assistant Directors of the other division, there will be a vacume. 12. Equally untenable is the argument of Shri Rastogi that the post of Deputy. Director if not filled from the Assistant Director (Documents Division) and is filled from amongst the Assistant Directors of the other division, there will be a vacume. Each employee who enters the Government Service has his own rights of promotions within the cadre and in accordance with the rules and regulation which regulated his conditions of service. Some persons get only one promotion during service while others get 2 to 4 promotion during their service. These are matters of pure coincidence and they are accepted hazards of the Government service. Therefore, merely because one or the other person belonging to a particular division may suffer in future on account of the promotion of Assistant Director of any Division other than Documents Division to the post of Deputy Director, that cannot be a ground for doing violence with the plain language of the rules. 13. There is yet another facet of the case which cannot be ignored and which goes to show that the grievance of the petitioner is not well founded out. The common seniority list of Assistant Directors.was issued on 4.4.84 and again on 22.6.89. Petitioner did not make any grievance against any of these seniority lists. He is admittedly below respondents No.3 and 4 and Shri P.S. Manocha in these lists. When Shri F.C. Puri or Shri R.C. Sharma was promoted in 1984 the petitioner did not make any grievance. If he had thought that the posts of Deputy Directors were created exclusively for documents division one would have expected him to make a challenge to the promotion of Shri R.C. Sharma, who admittedly belongs to Chemistry Division. Silence on the part of the petitioner to challenge the common seniority lists or the promotion order of Shri R.C. Sharma go to show that the petitioner himself knew that the post of Deputy Director is not exclusively meant for the Documents Division. 14. Thus in my considered opinion the posts of Deputy Directors created vide order dated 8.2.84 and encadred in the rules of 1979 vide notification dated 21.5.86 cannot be treated as posts belonging to the Documents Division. These posts are general post and will have to be filled on the basis of common seniority of the Assistant Directors belonging to all divisions. 15. These posts are general post and will have to be filled on the basis of common seniority of the Assistant Directors belonging to all divisions. 15. In the result I do not find any merit in the petition. The same is dismissed with no order as to costs. 16. Before parting with the case I would like to observe that the rule making authority will be well advised to insert a rule in the Rajasthan Police Forensic Science Service Rules, 1979 in order to provide for preparation of a common seniority of Assistant Directors belonging to different divisions so that any possibility of future litigation on the ground of absence of rule of preparation of a common seniority list is obviated.Petition dismissed. *******