JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsel for the parties. All the three writ petitions have been heard together because they involve identical questions of facts and law, and are being disposed of by a common order. In all the three writ petitions except Jeth Mal are working as Bench Readers. They initially entered into service as LDCs' and were subsequently promoted as UDCs and eventually as Stamp Reporters on passing the appropriate test and were posted as Bench Readers. Respondents Nos. 3 to 5 in all the three Writ Petitions are likewise Bench Readers. They also entered into service as LDCs and were promoted as UDCs' and were further promoted as Stamp Reporters on passing the necessary test and were eventually posted as Bench Readers. Out of the three respondents No. 5 Mulidhar Soni has already retired. 2. The only grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents No. 1 and 2 have fixed the initial seniority of the petitioners as LDCs on the basis of the dates of their confirmation as LDCs, while the seniority should have been fixed on the basis of dates of respective appointments. It is submitted that the petitioners are entitled to be promoted nationally in the cadre of UDCs' with effect from the dates, their juniers were promoted. Likewise, petitioners should have been promoted as Stamp Reporters and posted as Bench Readers, keeping in view, their seniority in the cadre of LDCs and UDCs on the basis of their dates of appointment/promotions. 3. Respondents No. 1 & 2 have opposed the writ petitions and submitted that the writ petitions suffer from good deal of delay and laches and would upset the equities which have arisen in favour of the other respondents and petitioners should not be permitted to upset these equities by way of obtaining orders in these three writ petitions. 4. On behalf of the petitioners, it has been pointed out that the matter of fixation of seniority on the basis of dates of appointment was taken up by Shri Ganpat Singh Deora and Hira Lal to this Court in WLR 1991(S), Raj. 116 and this court laid down that the date of appointment as LDCs should have been the criterion for fixing up seniority in the cadre of LDCs. 116 and this court laid down that the date of appointment as LDCs should have been the criterion for fixing up seniority in the cadre of LDCs. It is submitted that since the point involved was same, these petitioners did not file separate writ petition and waited for the decisions of the writ petitions filed by Shri Ganpat Singh Deora and Hira Lal. It is submitted that the petitioners are only claiming national benefit of seniority and do not claim any arrears of salary nor do they seek up-setting of the equities arising in favour of the respondents. 5. I have considered the rival contentions. It has been categorically laid down in WLR 1991(S) Rajasthan 116 (Ganpat Singh Deora v. Rajasthan High Court) that seniority has to be counted from the date of appointment as LDCs and not according to the date of confirmation as LDCs. The principle is unexceptional in as much as on confirmation a glorious uncertainty of service and is at best fertuituous circumstances. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 could not controvert this legal position that initially seniority of petitioners as LDCs ought to have been fixed on the basis of the respective dates of appointments as LDCs and not on the basis of the date of confirmation as LDCs. When viewed from this angle each one of the petitioners was entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of UDCs on the basis of his seniority amongst LDCs as reckoned on the basis of the date of appointment and not on the date of confirmation, of course subject to suitability each one of them was entitled to be promoted when his juniors were promoted to the post of UDCs. Consequently, the writ petitioners were entitled to be promoted as Stamp Reporters on the date/dates their juniors were promoted as Stamp Reporters, of course subject to the passing of the appropriate test. Likewise, they are entitled to be posted as Bench Readers with effect from the date/dates their juniors were posted as Bench Readers. 6. Since, petitioners do not claim any arrears of salary and do not pray for setting aside any promotions made so far, the contention that the equities would be upset loses significance. Likewise, they are entitled to be posted as Bench Readers with effect from the date/dates their juniors were posted as Bench Readers. 6. Since, petitioners do not claim any arrears of salary and do not pray for setting aside any promotions made so far, the contention that the equities would be upset loses significance. On the point of delay, I find that the point involved in the earlier two writ petitions of Shri Ganpat Deora and Hira Lal had filed writ petitions, it was not necessary for the petitioners to file individual writ petitioners. The High Court also took that position while issuing Annexure 8 dated 29.1.91. Therefore, the objection on the ground of delay is also of no substance. 7. No other point was urged before me. 8. In view of what I have stated above, I accept all the three writ petitions and direct the respondents No. 1 and 2 to fix up the seniority of the petitioners amongst LDCs on the basis of principle laid down in WLR 1991(S) Rajasthan 116 (Ganpat Singh Deora v. Rajasthan High Court) " respondent Nos. 1 & 2 shall then nationally promote the petitioners in the cadre of UDCs with effect from the date/dates their juniors namely respondents No. 3 to 5 were so promoted, subject of course they were suitable. Likewise, petitioners shall be notionally promoted to the post of Stamp Reporter with effect from the date/dates their juniors were promoted as Stamp Reporters. The same principle would apply to their postings as Bench Readers. Of course, the case of Jeth Mal is different and he should not be entitled to benefit of notional fixation as Stamp Reporters and as Bench Readers. It is clarified that the petitioners shall not be entitled to any arrears of salary on account of notional promotions and fixations. The respondent No. 1 & 2 shall re- allocate the seniority of the petitioners in the cadre of Stamp Reporters and Bench Readers after taking into consideration their refixed seniority in cadre of LDCs' and UDCs in accordance with the formula laid down in WLR 1991(S) Rajasthan 116 (Ganpat Singh Deora v. Rajasthan High Court). 9. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.Order accordingly. *******