JUDGMENT Miss Kamlesh Sharma, J.—The petitioner is working as Superintendent in the Himachal Pradesh University (hereinafter called the University). In this writ petition he has prayed to grant him his due seniority as an Assistant/Head Clerk in accordance with the judgment of this Court in C. W. P. No. 161 of 1975, Subhash Chander etc. v. State of H. P. etc., 1978 1LR (HP Series) 18, and consequential reliefs thereof, such as, promotion to the post of Superintendent, grant of selection grade as such and promotion to further posts of Assistant Registrar etc. etc. He has also prayed for quashing of Memo dated 25th October, 1982 (Annexure P-30 to the petition) confirming him as Head Clerk/Assistant on the date of his joining the University, that is, 20th October, 1973, and his placement below Sh. Sudesh Singh Thakur in the seniority list of Assistants/Head Clerks and seniority lists of Sections Officers (Annexures P-32 and P-33). 2. The case of the petitioner, as stated in the writ petition, is that he joined the service of the Agriculture Department of Himachal Pradesh Administration on 5th March, 1955 and was later confirmed as Head Clerk onl5thJune, 1966. He was asked to exercise his option to join the University vide Memo dated 28th August, 1973 (Annexure P-l) on the terms and conditions stated therein. Accordingly, he gave his option and joined the University on 20th October, 1973. On his joining, he found that the University on 13th April, 1973 had circulated a tentative list of Assistants/Head Clerks/Selection Grade Clerks as on 31st January, 1973 wherein the dates of joining of the transferred Head Clerks were shown in accordance with their appointments in the Agriculture Department of the Government. As such, the petitioner made a representation dated 30th October, 1973 (Annexure P-3) requesting the University that his name be also shown in the seniority list at Serial No. 1 by taking into consideration the fact that he had been confirmed as Head Clerk with effect from 15th June, 1966 in the Department of Agriculture of the Government of Himachal Pradesh. 3. Instead of considering the representation of the petitioner, the University proceeded to make promotions to the posts of Superintendent vide Office Orders dated 5th November, 1973 (Annexures P-4 and P-5). Though S/Sh. 3. Instead of considering the representation of the petitioner, the University proceeded to make promotions to the posts of Superintendent vide Office Orders dated 5th November, 1973 (Annexures P-4 and P-5). Though S/Sh. Chaman Lal Garla and S. K. Lal Gupta, who were transferred from Agriculture Department and were junior to the petitioner in the said department, were promoted vide Office Order (Annexure P-4), yet, the name of the petitioner was not considered while making the promotions. In the circumstances, the petitioner made further representations dated 9lh November, 1973 and 10th January, 1974 (Annexures P-6 and P-8) but without any result. The University regularised the ad hoc promotions made vide Annexure P-5 by office Order dated 5th/6th November, 1974 (Annexure P-7). Ultimately, the petitioner, alongwith others, was promoted to the post of Superintendent but purely on ad hoc basis for a period of one year, in the first instance, with immediate effect vide Office Order dated 9th December, 1975 (Annexure P-9). On the other hand, all those who were first promoted on ad hoc basis vide Office Order dated 15th November, 1973 (Annexure P-5) and regularised vide Office Order dated 5th/6th November, 1974 (Annexure P-7) were confirmed with effect from 22nd May, 1975 vide Office Order dated 1-8-1975 (Annexure P-10). Out of those who were promoted vide Office Order dated 5th November, 1973 (Annexure P-4), S/Sh. Chaman Lal Garla and another were confirmed with effect from 8th November, 1974 by curtailing their probation period from two years to one year. Sh. S. K. Lal Gupta and others, who were promoted by the same Order were considered but not found fit for confirmation. Therefore, their probation period was extended by one year with effect from 8th November, 1975. 4. In the meantime, the erst-while employees of the University made a representation against the seniority list dated 13th April, 1973 alleging that the employees inherited from the Agriculture Department may be treated as direct recruits with effect from the date of their actually joining the University on transfer. Their representation was rejected by the Executive Council of the University in its meeting held on 17th/19th May, 1975 and in accordance with its decision, it circulated a tentative seniority list dated 9th/llih June, 1975 of Assistants/Head Clerks as it stood on 1st June, 1975 (Annexure P-J2). In this Seniority list, the petitioner was placed at Sr. No. 1 whereas S/Sh. In this Seniority list, the petitioner was placed at Sr. No. 1 whereas S/Sh. Chaman Lal Garla and S. K. Lal Gupta were placed at Sr. Nos. 2 and 4, according to their seniority in the Agriculture Department. Others were also given seniority with effect from the date of their joining as Assistants/Head Clerks, either in the Departments from where they were transferred to the University or in the University itself. 5. The erst while employees of the University challenged the seniority list (Annexure P-121 by filing writ petition Subhash Chander etc. v. State of H. P. etc. (supra).. In that writ petition, S/Sh. Chaman Lal Garla, S. K. Lal Gupta, the petitioner and Sh. J. C. Chaudhary were arrayed as respondent Nos. 9, 10, 11 and 12 respectively. Another Head Clerk, Sh. Moti Lal Sharma, inherited from the Agriculture Department was not made respondent as he was junior to the petitioner. 6. One of the contentions raised by Subhash Chander etc., petitioners in the said writ petition, was that for the purpose of seniority and further promotions, the past services rendered by respondent Nos 9 to 12, in that writ petition, under the Government of Himachal Pradesh, before their coming to the University, could not have been taken into account and the seniority of all the servants of the University was required to be reckoned with from the date on which they joined the University While answering the contention in the negative, this Court, inter alia, considered the background in which the employees of the Agriculture Department of the Government of Himachal Pradesh were transferred to the University as well as the terms and conditions on which they were transferred. These terms and conditions were decided in the meeting held on 29th March, 1971 attended by the then Vice-Chancellor of the University, Dr. R. K. Singh, Advisor, Mr. K. L. Sethi, Secretary (Agriculture) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Sh. B. C Negi, Secretary to the Chief Minister, Mr. Anang Pal and Director of Agriculture Dr. B. S. Jogi, and are reproduced in Para 9 of the judgment. This Court took note of the first condition according to which the deemed date of transfer was fixed as 22nd July, 1970, the date on which the Himachal Pradesh University Act, 1970, came into operation. Anang Pal and Director of Agriculture Dr. B. S. Jogi, and are reproduced in Para 9 of the judgment. This Court took note of the first condition according to which the deemed date of transfer was fixed as 22nd July, 1970, the date on which the Himachal Pradesh University Act, 1970, came into operation. The decision of this Court was : “....It is thus clear that the terms and conditions under which the respondent Nos. 9 to 12 and other Government employees were transferred to the University constitute the very basis for the formulation of the University itself and that the very employment of the petitioners in the University services owed its existence to these terms and conditions against which they are now making a grievance. The petitioners have obviously entered into the employment of the University subject to this basic understanding that the terms and conditions on which the services of the Government employees would be transferred under statute 38 (2) were likely to affect their service conditions. It is, therefore, not open to the petitioners to make any grievance against these terms and conditions." 7. Referring to case law, Paresh Chandra v. Controller of Stores 1971 (2) SLR 68 ; Reserve Bank of India v. N. C. Palwal, 1976 (2) SLR 774; H.S. Shivalingaiah v. State of Mysore, 1971 (1) SLR 327 and Khurshid Ahmed v. Union of India, AIR 1969 Mys 346, this Court further held (in Para 49) : ".....That it is an inherent right of an employer in public service to integrate services of different cadres and to work upon some reasonable principles of seniority of the services so integrated. The reasonableness of such principles would obviously depend upon the peculiar exigencies of a given situation. Dictates of policy, and needs of administration, could necessarily play a dominent role in the formulation of this principle, and hence, unless the Court finds that the principles in question are determined quite arbitrarily and on wholly irrelevant grounds, it would not be justified to interfere in those formulations. In such circumstances no class of existing employees has any locus standi to challenge these principles even if they are likely to affect them adversely because their service conditions are always subject to the larger demands of public interest and administrative efficiency of the institution which they serve." 8. In such circumstances no class of existing employees has any locus standi to challenge these principles even if they are likely to affect them adversely because their service conditions are always subject to the larger demands of public interest and administrative efficiency of the institution which they serve." 8. Another contention of the petitioners in the said writ petition was also rejected that giving seniority to the Government employees transferred to the University from the dates of their appointments in their parent departments, would amount to their appointment in the University retrospectively. This Court held (in Para 51) that, “....What is done by the University and the Government is merely to take into account the past services of transferred employees in order to safeguard their lights which had accrued till the date of their transfer.... " 9. One more point raised by the petitioners in the said writ petition was that the transfer of respondent Nos. 9 to 12 in the said writ petition was bad as while transferring them the principle of "Last come First go" was not followed. This Court opined that, "......the principle of last come first go is a principle of prudence and equity bat not a principle having any statutory force. Therefore, if this principle is not rigidly followed on account of some special circumstances, it would not result in any illegality". Ultimately, the Court approved the principle of taking into account the past services of Government employees transferred to the University for preparing the seniority list dated 13th April, 1973 but held that while finalizing it, the confirmed employees be placed senior to those who were not confirmed. 10. The judgment in Subhash Chander etc. v. The State of H. P. etc. (supra) became final between the parties as no appeal was filed against it. In pursuance to the judgment, the University circulated revised tentative seniority list of Assistants/Head Clerks as it stood on 1st June, 1975 vide Memo dated 2nd May, 1978 (Annexure P-13) and the petitioner was placed at Serial No. 1 though in the remarks column he was shown as officiating Superintendent. In this seniority list, the names of those who were wrongly promoted and confirmed as Superintendents between 5th November, 1973 to 31st May, 1975 preceding the petitioner were omitted though they had figured in the seniority list (Annexure P-12), approved by this Court in its judgment. In this seniority list, the names of those who were wrongly promoted and confirmed as Superintendents between 5th November, 1973 to 31st May, 1975 preceding the petitioner were omitted though they had figured in the seniority list (Annexure P-12), approved by this Court in its judgment. In the circumstances, the petitioner made representation dated 12th May, 1978 (Annexure P-14) and appeal dated 8th May, 1979 (Annexure P-15). He was informed vide Memo dated 8th June, 1979 (Annexure P-16) that the matter was "under active consideration". Thereafter, in the meeting of the Executive Council of the University held on I7th/18th August, 1979, the University promoted the petitioner as Superintendent from 6th November, 1973 and confirmed him with effect from 6th November, 1975. An extract of the proceedings of the Executive Council is placed on record as Annexure P-17. In pursuance to this decision of the Executive Council, the University issued Office orders dated 21st August, 1979 (Annexures P-18 and P-19) in respect of grant of Selection grade and regularization of ad hoc services of ail other employees except the petitioner and in Para 2 of Office Order dated 21st August, 1979 (Annexure Pi 9), it was mentioned that Office Order in respect of the petitioner will be issued separately. The petitioner has alleged that the decision of the Executive Council was not implemented in his case with a mala fide intention so that he may not represent against the grant of Selection Grade to his juniors in whom the then Registrar of the University Sh. K. D. Gupta, was interested. On coming to know of the Office Order (Annexure P-18), the petitioner again made a representation on 18th October, 1979 (Annexure P-20). 11. On the Establishment of the H. P. Agricultural University (H. P. Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya) with effect from 1st November, 1978, the staff of the University was bifurcated and a tentative seniority list of Assistants/ Head Clerks as on 1st November, 1978 and 31st January, 1980 was issued on 18th February, 1980 (Annexure P-21) wherein the petitioner was shown at Sr. No. 1 but as Superintendent on ad hoc basis. Another seniority list of Superintendents as it stood on 1st November, 1978 and 31st January, 1980 (Annexure P-22) was also issued wherein the petitioner was shown, at Sr. No. 11. In the remarks column, a note was appended that he was Superintendent on ad hoc basis. No. 1 but as Superintendent on ad hoc basis. Another seniority list of Superintendents as it stood on 1st November, 1978 and 31st January, 1980 (Annexure P-22) was also issued wherein the petitioner was shown, at Sr. No. 11. In the remarks column, a note was appended that he was Superintendent on ad hoc basis. These seniority lists were issued by ignoring the decision of the Executive Council dated 17th/18th August, 1979 (Annexure P-17) to promote the petitioner as Superintendent with effect v from 6th November, 1973 and confirming him in the said post with effect from 6th November, 1975 The petitioner had no alternative but to again represent to the University on 10th March, 1980 (Annexures P-23 and P-24). He also placed his case of victimization by way of his affidavit (Annexure P-26) and also by appearing in person before Mr. Justice Chet Ram Thakur, who was appointed by the Chancellor to enquire into the irregularities in appointments etc. in the University vide Office Order dated 7th March. 1980 (Annexure P-25). Further representations dated 29th November, 1980 and 17th December, 1980 were though placed before the Executive Council in its meeting held on lst/2nd December, 1980 and 23rd January, 1981 respectively but their consideration was postponed. Instead of implementing its earlier decision dated 17th/l8th August, 1979, the Executive Council passed a resolution dated 30th April, 1981 to constitute a Committee to scrutinise and finalize the seniority of non-teaching employees vide notification dated 31st May, 1981 (Annexure P-28). Thereafter, vide Memo dated 25th October, 1982 (Annexure P-3), the petitioner was informed that the said Committee had arrived at the conclusion that under the rules applicable and with reference to the judgment in C. W. P. No. 161 of 1975, he was to be treated as confirmed Head Clerk/Assistant from the date of his joining the University, that is, 20th October, 1973 and his rightful placement in the seniority list comes below Sh. Sudesh Singh Thakur, Section Officer. 12. Feeling aggrieved by the Memorandum, the petitioner again re presented on 26th October, 1982 (Annexure P-31) but with no results. The University in post haste on 30th October, 1982 without considering representation of the petitioner issued two seniority lists of Section Officers, as it stood on 29th October, 1982 (Annexures P-32 and P-33). Sudesh Singh Thakur, Section Officer. 12. Feeling aggrieved by the Memorandum, the petitioner again re presented on 26th October, 1982 (Annexure P-31) but with no results. The University in post haste on 30th October, 1982 without considering representation of the petitioner issued two seniority lists of Section Officers, as it stood on 29th October, 1982 (Annexures P-32 and P-33). In the first Seniority list, the name of the petitioner was not shown whereas in the second Seniority list, his name was shown at Sr. No. 6, below Sh. Sudesh Singh Thakur. In this Seniority list, the petitioner is shown as having joined on 10th December, 1975 but has been placed junior to those who had joined between 20th September, 1977 and 29th March, 1978. In the remarks Column of this Seniority list, a note was made stating the basis for fixing the seniority of the petitioner which is :— "Seniority amongst Head Clerks/Asstt. decided by the Sub-Committee appointed by the E. C. of its meeting dated 30-4-1981 and 1-5-1981 and notification No. 1-1/81 HPU (Genl.) dated 30-5-1981. Accordingly position as Section Officer given in terms of the decision communicated vide University Memo No. 6-2/l-HPU-Estt. dated 25-10-1982 (This supersedes all previous orders on the subject)." 13. After giving legal notice dated 21st November, 1984 (Annexure P-34), the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 14. In its reply, the University has raised the preliminary objection of delay and laches On merits, its stand is that since the petitioner had joined the University on 20th October, 1973, he could not be considered for promotion to the post of Superintendent, alongwith others, who were promoted vide Office Orders dated 5th November, 1973 (Annexures P-4 and P-5). It is explained that though actually these Office Orders were issued on 5th November, 1973, the Recruitment and Promotion Committee which had met on 28th May, 1973 had sought options for posting of those, who were selected, vide Memo dated 12th June, 1973 (Annexure R-2) when the petitioner was not on the rolls of the University, as such, he could not be considered for promotion as claimed by him. It is admitted that persons junior to the petitioner in the Agriculture Department of the Government of H. P. were considered for promotion to the post of Superintendent as they had joined the University earlier to him. It is admitted that persons junior to the petitioner in the Agriculture Department of the Government of H. P. were considered for promotion to the post of Superintendent as they had joined the University earlier to him. According to the University, the petitioner should blame the Agriculture Department of the Government of H. P. for releasing the names of his juniors, for appointment in the University, earlier to him, and in violation of the instructions contained in MHA-OM No. 9/11/55 RPS dated 22nd December, 1959. In respect of the implementation of the judgment in C. W. P. No. 161 of 1975, Subhash Chander etc. v. The State of H. P. etc., the stand of the University is given in Para 11 of its reply-affidavit as under:— "Para 11. In reply to this para, it is submitted that in C. W. P. No. 161 of 1975, the Recruitment and Promotion Rules of 1973 were not at all taken into consideration. They were neither argued nor were the same brought to the notice of the Court. Further more, the judgment rendered in this Civil Writ Petition was to be implemented in the light of these rules as well as the position of an individual working in the Himachal Pradesh University at that particular time. These aspects of the issue were neither discussed nor decided by the Court in this Civil Writ Petition in the light of this submission when the seniority of various employees was to be done by the replying respondents. Still in view of the changes which had taken place by virtue of intervening promotions/appointments, the petitioner could not be given seniority earlier to him although his past service till he joined the Himachal Pradesh University has been counted and by virtue of that the petitioner has been taken by the replying respondents as confirmed Head Clerk/Assistant w. e. f. 20-10-1973, which is his date of joining the University....." 15. It is admitted by the University that the Executive Council in its meeting held on 17th/! It is admitted by the University that the Executive Council in its meeting held on 17th/! 8th August, 1979 did take a decision to promote the petitioner as Superintendent with effect from 6th November, 1973 and to confirm him as such with effect from 6th November, 1975 but while confirming its proceedings, in its meeting held on 1st July, 1980, the Executive Council made a note, "Refer to Annexure" i. e. Annexure to Item No. 2, wherein it was stated that "Sh. B. K Gowel pointed out that some further information had come to his notice with regard to this item. He, therefore, requested that the item be re-examined by the Recruitment and Promotion Committee". According to the University, therefore, the matter of promotion on regular basis and of confirmation to the post of Superintendent of the petitioner was still pending for consideration of the Recruitment and Promotion Committee. As such, there was no question of issuing Office Orders as claimed by the petitioner. The Seniority Lists (Annexures P-32 and P-33) were issued after the case of the petitioner was considered by the Sub-Committee appointed by the Executive Council and the placement of the petitioner at Sr. No. 6 Seniority List (Annexure P-33) is correct. 16. During the pendency of this Writ Petition two Civil Misc, applications No. 48 of 1983 and 61 of 1983 under Order 1, Rule 10, C. P. C. have been filed on behalf of S/Sh Narender Kumar Sharma, K P. Dogra and S. S. Thakur and S/Sh. Subhash Chander and others who were petitioners in C. W. P. No. 161 of 1975, to implead them as party respondents. These applications were ordered to be heard at the time of final arguments of this writ petition by order dated 11th January, 1983. No reply has been filed to these applications by the petitioner. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, this Court allowed these applications on 9th December, 1992 and all the applicants were added as party respondents. Instead of filing separate reply-affidavits, they adopted the reply filed on behalf of the University and made their submissions in the writ petition, 17. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Instead of filing separate reply-affidavits, they adopted the reply filed on behalf of the University and made their submissions in the writ petition, 17. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Sh, D. K Khanna, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has urged that the short point involved in the present writ petition is of determination of the seniority of the petitioner in accordance with the judgment dated 4th/6th January, 1978 passed in the Civil Writ Petition No. 161 of 1975 which has become final between the parties. According to Mr. Khanna, though the petitioner had joined on 20th October, 1973, yet, as per Condition, No. 1 (i) off the terms and conditions settled in the meeting between the representatives of the Government and the University ht Id on 29th March, 1971, the deemed date of transfer of the petitioner was 20th July, 1970. As such, he was entitled to be considered the employee of the University from that date, which is the date of establishment of the University. He has also pointed out that the Seniority list dated 9th/llth June, 1975 (Annexure P-12) was approved by the judgment in the case of Subhash Chander etc. v. The State of H. P. etc (supra) whereby the petitioner was placed at Serial No. 1 above S/Sh, Chaman Lal Garla and S. K. Lal Gupta who were junior to him in the Department of Agriculture of the Government of H. P. Mr. Khanna urges that the stand taken by the University is in contravention to the said judgment, as such, by not finalizing the said seniority list and giving consequential benefits arising out of it to the petitioner, the University has disobeyed the said judgment and thereby committed gross contempt of this Court. On the other hand, Sh. D. C. Jishtu, appearing on behalf of the University, has made an attempt to support the stand taken by it on the grounds mentioned in Para 11 of the reply affidavit which has been reproduced hereinabove. 18. We find the submission made on behalf of the petitioner full of substance and accept the same. Admittedly, the judgment in the case Subhash Chander etc. v. The State of H. P. etc. 18. We find the submission made on behalf of the petitioner full of substance and accept the same. Admittedly, the judgment in the case Subhash Chander etc. v. The State of H. P. etc. (supra) in C. W. P. No, 161 of 1^75 has become final between the parties in which the seniority list dated 9th/11th June, 1975 (Annexure P-12), wherein the petitioner and other transferred employees from the Agriculture Department of the Government of Himachal Pradesh were placed senior to the erst-while employees of the University, was under challenge. After taking into con sideration the agreement between the representatives of the Governments and the University, arising out of the various correspondence exchanged between them and the deliberations of their meeting held on 29th March, 1971, this Court approved the principle on which the seniority list dated 9th/11lth June, 1975 was prepared that the service of the transferred employees was to be taken into consideration while determining their seniority in the University. It was also noticed by this Court that as per Condition No. 1 (i) of the terms and conditions determined between the representatives of the Government and the University on 29th March, 1971, the deemed date of transfer of the transferred employees to the University was 20th July, 1970. In view of these findings in the case of Subhash Chander etc. v. The State of H. P etc., we are of the opinion that it was of no consequence that the petitioner was given option to join the university on 28th August, 1973 vide Annexure P-l and he, in fact, joined on 20th October, 1973 vide Annexure P-2. If by way of legal fiction, the petitioner was on the rolls of the University as on 20th July, 1970, he was entitled to seniority in the cadre of Assistants/Head Clerks of the University by taking into consideration his appointment of Head Clerk with effect from 27th September, I960 and confirmation as such with effect from 15th June, 1966. 19. The stand taken by the University is prima facie preposterous and contrary to the judgment of this Court in the case of Subhash Chander etc. v. The State of H. P. etc. (supra). 19. The stand taken by the University is prima facie preposterous and contrary to the judgment of this Court in the case of Subhash Chander etc. v. The State of H. P. etc. (supra). In the facts and circumstances on record, it is writ large that those who were affected by giving rightful place to the petitioner in the seniority list of Assistants/Head Clerks were out to manage the affairs of the University in such a manner as to throttle all attempts to implement the judgment in the case of Subhash Chander etc. v. The State of H. P. etc. In fact, the Executive Council in its meeting held on 17th/18th August, 1979 did take a decision to promote the petitioner as Superintendent with effect from 6th November, 1973 and confirm him with effect from 6th November, 1975 but office order was not issued on the pre text that while confirming the proceedings in the next meeting, the Executive Council had referred to an Annexure to Item No. 2 wherein Sh. B. K. Gowel had pointed out that some further information had come to notice with regard to this item and the matter may be re-examined by the Recruitment and Promotion Committee, If this was correct, how the Office Orders of grant of Selection Grade and regularization of ad hoc appointments as Superintendents of others were issued vide Annexures P-18 and P-19 in respect of whom the decision was taken under the same item. Apparently, the interested persons in the University were able to scuttle the decision of the Executive Council on a pretext that further information had come to notice and the item might be re-examined by the Recruitment and Promotion Committee. The further information was not placed before the Executive Council and its decision in clear terms was not obtained reviewing its earlier decision. The action of the University does not appear bona fide as the decision dated 17th/18th August, 1979 of the Executive Council was not implemented only in the case of the petitioner. In our opinion, even this decision would not have met the ends of justice and given to the petitioner his due in accordance with the judgment in Subhash Chander etc, v. The State of H. P. etc. 20. In our opinion, even this decision would not have met the ends of justice and given to the petitioner his due in accordance with the judgment in Subhash Chander etc, v. The State of H. P. etc. 20. Further, the University has not placed on record any material which may justify the decision of the Executive Council to review its earlier decision and appoint a Committee vide notification, Annexure P-28, to reconsider the finalize the case of the petitioner in respect of his seniority. Its recommendations on the basis of which Memorandum dated 25th October, (Annexure P-3) and Seniority Lists dated 30th October, 1982 (Annexures P-32 and P-33) were framed are wrong and against the judgment of this Court in Subhash Chander etc, v. The State of H P. etc , and are liable to be quashed. The petitioner was entitled to his past service which he rendered in the Department of Agriculture of the Government of Himachal Pradesh for the purpose of seniority, as such, when he was transferred to the University, he was Head Clerk with effect from 20th September, 1960 and confirmed as such with effect from 15th June, 1966. The petitioner was given the option later and he joined the University much after the joining of Chaman Lal Garla and others, who were undisputedly junior to him in the parent department, were fortuitous circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner. As the employees of the Agriculture Department were not given option to join the University at one point of time, the deemed date of joining was fixed as 20th July, 1970 to obviate any injustice to them in respect of their rights of service in the University. Therefore, the petitioner, though joined the University on 20th October, 1973, yet he was deemed to be in the service of the University on 20th July, 1970 and entitled to be shown as such in the seniority lists of Assistants/Head Clerks circulated from time to time and also the consequential benefits flowing therefrom It is correct that for making promotion to the posts of Superintendent, the process had started earlier to the joining of the petitioner in the University but promotion orders dated 5th November, 1973 (Annexures P-4 and P-5) were issued later on. The University was required to consider the petitioner for promotion to the post of Superintendent before Chaman Lal Garla was promoted with effect from 5th November, 1973 on the basis of his seniority as Assistant/Head Clerk above him when this fact was brought to the notice of the University by the petitioner by way of his repeated representations or atleast after the judgment in Subhash Chander etc. v. The State of H. P. etc. But at no point of time, the case of the petitioner was considered by the University in the right perspective except on 17/18th August, 1979 by the Executive Council but its decision was rendered futile as stated above. 21. The defence taken by the University in Para 11 of its reply-affidavit, which is reproduced hereinabove, is nothing but an excuse not to implement the judgment in Subhash Chander etc. v. The State of H. P. etc., in the case of the petitioner. The Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1973 were in existence and were also brought to the notice of the Division Bench of this Court deciding the said case. Therefore, now the University cannot turn around and say that, "these aspects of the issue", that, "the rules as well as the position of an individual working in the H. P. University at that particular time" were neither discussed nor decided by the Court in the said judgment. It has been made clear in the judgment that the erst while employees of the University had joined the University knowing fully well the terms and conditions under which the transferred employees were brought to the University. As such, they should not be aggrieved by the benefit of seniority given to the transferred employees. It was implicit in these findings that once seniority of Assistants/Head Clerks in the University is determined by giving benefit of their past service to the transferred employees, all other benefits flowing from the seniority were to be given to the transferred employees. As in the present case, once the petitioner is held senior to Sh. Chaman Lal Garla and other Assistants/Head Clerks, he was required to be considered for promotion to the post of Superintendent and other benefits before him from the back date. The plea that Sh. As in the present case, once the petitioner is held senior to Sh. Chaman Lal Garla and other Assistants/Head Clerks, he was required to be considered for promotion to the post of Superintendent and other benefits before him from the back date. The plea that Sh. Chaman Lal Garla and others who had joined the University earlier to the petitioner stood already considered for promotion to the post of Superintendent and promoted and the petitioner could not be considered before them, is not sustainable in law and is rejected. 22. As a result of the above discussion, we hold that the petitioner is entitled to be placed at Sr. No. 1 in the seniority lists of Assistants/Head Clerks of the University circulated from time to time being Head Clerk from 20th September, 1960 and confirmed as such with effect from 15th June, 1966. Therefore, we quash the Memo dated 25th October 1982 (Annexure P-30) and the Seniority lists (Annexures P-32 and P-33) to the extent that the name of the petitioner is not shown at Serial No 1 as Head Clerk with effect from 20th September, 1960 and confirmed Head Clerk with effect from 15th June, 1966, and direct the University to re-frame the seniority list of Head Clerks as on 1st June, 1975 placing the petitioner at Sr. No. 1 and to consider him for regular promotion, confirmation and Selection Grade in the post of Superintendent before these benefits were granted to his immediate junior, Sh. Chaman Lal Garla. He will further be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar/Deputy Registrar etc. etc. on the basis of his seniority in the cadre of Superintendents. 23. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are satisfied that the petitioner has been denied his due despite his repeated representations^ and the judgment of this Court m Subhash Chander etc, v The State of H. P. etc., for a period of about fourteen to seventeen years Therefore he is entitled to exemplary costs which we quantify at Rs 10 000 half of which will be paid by the University and half by the private respondents in equal share. The writ petition is accepted in the above terms. Writ petition allowed. -