JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner who has rendered over 27 years of service by now, as Salt Inspector in Rajasthan Rajya Lavan Udyog, Didwana, and who was aspiring for promotion as Assistant Manager, the first one in his service career, has approached this Court by way of filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayer for quashing of the order dated 3.6.91 (Exhibit 3) issued by the General Administration Department (G.A.D.) by which Respondent No. 3 has been ordered to be absorbed on the post of Assistant Manager in Rajasthan Rajya Lavan Udyog, Didwana. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was selected for the post of Salt Inspector and was appointed by direct recruitment vide order dated 13.11.1964 at Rajasthan Rajya Lavan Udyog, Didwana, which is run by the State Enterprises Department, Government of Rajasthan. He was confirmed on this post with effect from 21.10.70. In the seniority list of Salt Inspector issued on 25.3.87 by the Silt Commissioner, name of the petitioner has been shows at serial No. 4. S/Shri U.C. Purohit and Roop Singh, whose names appear at serial Nos. 1 and 3 had been promoted as Assistant M onager in the past and Shri Jagan Lal, whose name appears at serial No. 2 has died. Sari U.C. Purohit, Assistant Manager was further promoted as Manager on 10.4.91 and that is have a vacancy in the cadre of Assistant Manager his become available and according to the petitioner he has a right to be promoted on the basis of his seniority and -suitability. He was givens charge of this' post on 12.4.91. A-person holding the post of Salt Inspector with five years experience on the said post is eligible for promotion as Assistant Manager. 3. Respondent No. 3 was 'working as Assistant Chemist at Rajasthan State Chemical Works Didwana, another unit which is being run by the State Enterprises Department of the Government of Rajasthan.. According to the petitioner, he was declared surplus on 10-4-91. He was absorbed in the Agriculture Marketing Department where he reported for duty on 22-4-91. 3. Respondent No. 3 was 'working as Assistant Chemist at Rajasthan State Chemical Works Didwana, another unit which is being run by the State Enterprises Department of the Government of Rajasthan.. According to the petitioner, he was declared surplus on 10-4-91. He was absorbed in the Agriculture Marketing Department where he reported for duty on 22-4-91. Further case of the petitioner is that after the post of Assistant Manager in' Rajasthan Rajya Lavan Udyog, Didwana became vacant, Respondent No.3 made manipulations at the departmental level resulting in a communication by the Director, Agriculture Marketing to the General Administration Department that since Respondent No. 3 is not a Science Graduate in Chemistry, he is not entitled, to be posted as Chemist in Marketing Department and he may be sent,elsewhere. Thereafter the General Administration Department issued another order dated 3-6-91. The earlier. order of absorption of the petitioner was cancelled and he was ordered to be, absorbed as Assistant Manager, Rajasthan Rajya Lavan Udyog, Dipwana. The petitioner protested against this order because he felt that his promotion is being stultified by this order of absorption issued in favour of Respondent No. 3. 4. The case of the petitioner is that once Respondent No. 3 had been absorbed in the Agriculture , Marketing Department on the post of Chemist, there could be no justification for passing of a fresh order of absorption. Under the provisions of Rajasthan Civil Service (Absorption of Surplus Personnel), Rules, 1969 (for short 'Ruler of 1969') no power is vested with the Government in General Administration Department to supersede or cancel the order of absorption dated 22-4-91. It was not open to the Agriculture Marketing Department to ;have ignored the order of absorption of Respondent No. L, The Director, Agriculture Marketing Department has no authority to pass such an order on an wholly erroneous premise of law. Placing reliance on Rule 10(1) of 1969 Rules, the petitioner has asserted that the conditions of eligibility stood automatically relaxed with the passing of order of absorption in favour of Respondent No. 3 on 22-4-91.1 Subsequent order dated 3-6-91 has been passed on extraneous considerations. The petitioner will stand deprived of his right to be promoted till the end of his career and he will retire from the post of Salt Inspector, a post in A which he had joined in the year 1964. The petitioner will stand deprived of his right to be promoted till the end of his career and he will retire from the post of Salt Inspector, a post in A which he had joined in the year 1964. This, according to the petitioner will result in clear breach of fundamental right guaranteed by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of, India. 5. Respondents No. 1 and 2 have filed a reply wherein facts relating to the petitioner's selection and appointment- have not been disputed. It has been admitted that the post of Assistant Manager has fallen vacant on 12-4-91 and to make stop-gap arrangement, the petitioner has been given charge of this post,in addition to his post of Salt Inspector. It has been admitted that the post of Assistant Manager is required to be filled by promotion .under Rajasthan State Enterprise Subordinate Service Rules, 1976. Such promotion is required to be made on the basis of merit. It has been stated that although the petition has eligibility for promotion to the post of Assistant Manager but simply on the basis of seniority he cannot claim promotion on the post 'of Assistant Manager. It has been reiterated that being the biggest post in the service, the post of Assistant Manager is required to be filled on the basis of merit alone. It has then been stated that Shri G. M. Khan, who was working as Assistant Chemist in the Rajasthan State Chemical Works Didwana, was declared surplus w. e. f. 1-3-91 vide Government order dated 25-2-91. However, in fact he was relieved an 10-4-91. He submitted his joining report in the Agriculture Marketing Department on 2-5-91 but he was not allowed to join his duty there on the ground of lack of educational qualification and he was returned to the General Administration Department. The Commissioner, State Enterprises Department had sent necessary information regarding vacant post of the Asstt. Manager to the General Administration Department vide letter dated 4-5-91 with the clarification that the post is vacant since 12-4-91 and is required to be filled by 100% by promotion. On 27-5-91, the General Administration Department wrote to the Commissioner, State Enterprises as to whether they were agreeable to accept Respondent No. 3 back in the Department to be absorbed against the vacant post of the Assistant Manager and cancel the order declaring him surplus. On 27-5-91, the General Administration Department wrote to the Commissioner, State Enterprises as to whether they were agreeable to accept Respondent No. 3 back in the Department to be absorbed against the vacant post of the Assistant Manager and cancel the order declaring him surplus. Referring to Rule 9 of 1969 Rules, it has been stated that a surplus employee can be absorbed against any post meant for direct recruitment quota or promotion quota and keeping in view the aforesaid provision Respondent No. 3 was absorbed in the State Enterprises Department. Reference has also been made to the letter dated 14.6.91 written by the General Administration Department to the Commissioner State Enterprises Department wherein need for taking Respondent No. 3 on duty immediately was emphasised. In this letter reference has been made to Rule 10 (1) of 1969 Rules relating to relaxation of the qualification. Regarding petitioner's claim that he has a right to be considered for promotion it has been stated that the right of the petitioner is always there and his case for promotion will be considered by the DPC as per Rules and he can have no cause of grievance against the order dated 3.6.91. The plea of discrimination has been repelled by asserting that when Respondent No. 3 has been absoi bed by the GAD, the petitioner cannot claim that he should be promoted. 6. A separate reply has been filed by Respondent No. 3 in which it has been asserted that the petitioner him ;elf is not eligible for the appointment in the post of Assistant Manager because he is an Arts Graduate. He is, therefore, not entitled to be considered for promotion. Therefore, he has no locus standi to challenge the absorption of Respondent No. 3. It has then been stated that S/Shri U.C. Purohit and Roop Singh, who have subsequently been promoted as Manager and Assistant Manager respectively, in Salt Works, Didwana, also do not possess degree of Science. A mere existence of vacancy in the post of Assistant Manager does not parse entitle the petitioner to claim promotion. Likewise, merely because he has been given additional charge of the post, the petitioner cannot claim a right to continue on the post. A mere existence of vacancy in the post of Assistant Manager does not parse entitle the petitioner to claim promotion. Likewise, merely because he has been given additional charge of the post, the petitioner cannot claim a right to continue on the post. Non-petitioner No. 3 was absorbed in the post of Chemist in the Agriculture Marketing Department but he has not been allowed to join in the said department and now he has been ordered to be absorbed as Assistant Manager at Salt Works Didwana. Non petitioner No. 3 has stated that under the Rules of 1969 it is the obligation of the parent Department to explore the possibility of the timely absorption of the employee from where the employee is declared surplus and, therefore, if the State Enterprises Department has agreed for absorption of the petitioner in the post of Assistant Manager, no exception can be taken by the petitioner. The non-petitioner No. 3 had reported back to the General Administration Department on 4.5.91 after the Director, Agriculture Marketing Department had declined to take him as Chemist. On that very day he submitted a representation. At the same time a letter dated 4.5,91 was written by the Commissioner State Enterprises Department. This shows that a post of Assistant Manager had become available and, therefore, by virtue of Rule 7 (4) read with Rule 9 (1) of 1969 Rules, the order of absorption of Respondent No. 3 was passed on 3 6.91. The non-petitioner had been fixed in the scale of 2000-3200, about three years ago and the post in which he was absorbed earlier was carrying the pay scale of 1640-2900. The order declaring the non-petitioner No. 3 surplus was issued on 10.4.91 and on that very day order was issued promoting Shri U.C. Purohit and Shri Purohit was received from the post of Assistant Manager on 12.4.91. On that day the petitioner was given charge. This, according to the non-petitioner, had been done in order to manipulate the exclusion of non-petitioner No. 3 from the post of Assistant Manager. Thus, the case of non- petitioner No. 3 is that a post of Assistant Manager had become available at the time when he was declared surplus. It was the obligation of the non-petitioners to have absorbed him on the post available within the Department. Thus, the case of non- petitioner No. 3 is that a post of Assistant Manager had become available at the time when he was declared surplus. It was the obligation of the non-petitioners to have absorbed him on the post available within the Department. He had acquired a lot of experience of work as a Chemist and his services could be better utilised in the Rajasthan Rajya Lavan Udyog, Didwana. He had reported for duty in pursuance of the order dated 3.6.91 but he has not been allowed to join duty and immense hardship has been suffered by non-petitioner No. 3. A Rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner, but that only relates to the question of charge being taken over by the petitioner. In addition, Exhibit-8 has been filed which goes to show that the State Enterprises Department was anxious to fill the post of Assistant Manager by promotion. 7. On 18.7.91 when the arguments were heard by the Court, a direction was given to the Respondents No. I and 2 to produce the record of absorption committee. This direction was repeated on 2.8.91 and again on 13.9.91. Arguments were concluded on that day and learned Dy. Govt. Advocate was directed to produce the record by Tuesday. When the case was ultimately taken up for dictation, the learned counsel for non-petitioner No. 3 made a request for some additional submissions and the counsel were again heard on the matter. 8. From the record, which has been produced by the learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the perusal of the Court it transpires that a decision to wind up the Rajasthan Rajya Chemical Works was taken prior to September 1990. With the decision of the Government to close the works a number of posts were abolished including the past of Assistant Chemist which was held by the petitioner. An order dated 18.9.90 was issued for abolition of 53 posts including the post of Assistant Chemist in the name of Hon'ble the Governor. A list of persons to be declared surplus was sent by the Commissioner, State Enterprises Department to the General Admiration Department. The name of Non-petitioner No. 3 was mentioned at serial No. 1 in this list. The list was sent along with order dated 1.10.90. A list of persons to be declared surplus was sent by the Commissioner, State Enterprises Department to the General Admiration Department. The name of Non-petitioner No. 3 was mentioned at serial No. 1 in this list. The list was sent along with order dated 1.10.90. It is, however, borne out from the record that while other employees were relieved for reporting themselves for duty before the General Administration Department, Respondent No. 3 was not so relieved and he continued with the Rajasthan State Chemical Works. A proposal was also made for revival of the post of Assistant Chemits but this proposal was finally turned down by the Finance Department in the month of February 1991. This fact is borne out from the contents of File No. F. 10(17) CSE/Estt./75. The Manager of the Salt Works issued order for relieving the non-petitioner No. 3 on 10.4.91 in pursuance of the letter dated 9.4.91 of the Secretary. State Enterprised Department and thereafter the Production Manager relieved him vide his office order dated 10.4.91. A copy of the express telegram sent by the Deputy Secretary to the Government, State Enterprises Department to the Manager. Salt Works, Didwana on 9.4.91 is also available at page 159 of File No. F. 10(17) CSE/Estt./75. 9. The employees who were declared surplus and reported for duty in the General Administration Department in the month of October 1990 and thereafter were ordered to be absorbed on different post in different Departments in the Govt. of Rajasthan. From perusal of File No. F. 1(8) Gen. Admn./3/90 it appears that the Director, Agricultural Marketing Department had sent a letter dated 20.2.91 indicating the position of the vacant posts in that Department. Eight Pets of Chemists were shown to be vacant at various places in the pay scale of 1640-2900. After the non-petitioner No. 3 had reported before the GAD, an order dated 22.4.91 was issued under the signatures of the Secretary, Absorption Committee to the Special Secretary GAD for . absorption of the.: non-petitioner No. 3 as Chemist in the Agriculture Marketing Department in the pay scale of -1640-2900. In the File No. F. 1(8) Gen. Admn./3/90, the concerned officer had merely noted that the three employees including, the petitioner were awaiting for absorption and they may be absorbed on equivalent post. absorption of the.: non-petitioner No. 3 as Chemist in the Agriculture Marketing Department in the pay scale of -1640-2900. In the File No. F. 1(8) Gen. Admn./3/90, the concerned officer had merely noted that the three employees including, the petitioner were awaiting for absorption and they may be absorbed on equivalent post. On this noting, the Special Secretary, GAD expressed his approval by simply appending his signatures and this was followed by the order, of absorption of Respondent No. 3 in Agriculture Marketing Department, which .was issued on 22-4-91. When the Director, Agriculture Marketing did not; accept non-petitioner No. 3, the office of GAD prepared a note that as per Rule 10(1) of 1969 Rules, the Director of Agriculture Marketing should be instructed to issue order in favour of non-petitioner No. 3 because the qualifications could be relaxed by virtue of Rule 10(1). The subsequent nothings contain reiteration of this, position but in the light of the representation dated 4.5.91 of non-petitioner No. 3, an alternative was suggested that the State Enterprises Department may be asked as to whether they were prepared to absorb the non-petitioner No. 3 in that Department and if they were agreeable, the order declaring him surplus may he cancelled and the employee may he sent back.: The Special Secretary, GAD approved the alternative suggested on 23.5.91. On 1.6.91 it has been noted that no reply has been received by the State Enter- prises Department.. Then it has been noted that the Special Secretary, GAD had issued telegraphic order that non-petitioner No. 3 be posted in State Enterprises Department and on that basis order.,dated 3:6.91 was issued. 10. , From the material which has been placed on record and on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following,. facts become crystal clear 1. The Government has taken decision - to wind up the' State Chemical Works, Didwana prior to September, 1,990. 2. The post of Assistant Chemist along with 52 other posts were abolished by the Government. 3. A -list of surplus, employees. which included the name of-non-petitioner No: 3 was sent by the State 'Enterprises Department to the General Administration' Department in the month of October 1990. 4. The non-petitioner-, No. 3 was not relieved even though he had been declared surplus. 5. 3. A -list of surplus, employees. which included the name of-non-petitioner No: 3 was sent by the State 'Enterprises Department to the General Administration' Department in the month of October 1990. 4. The non-petitioner-, No. 3 was not relieved even though he had been declared surplus. 5. A move was made by the State Enterprises Department to revive the post of Assistant Chemist but the Finance Department of the Government of Rajasthan did not agree to the proposal. 6. A telegraphic order was issued by the State Enterprises Department on 9.4.91 for, relieving non-petitioner No. 3 and he was relieved from Didwana on 10.4.91. 11. After he reported for duty before the GAD, without any exercise relating to the requirement of Rule 3 (f) (g) read with Rule 6(A) of 1969 Rules, an order was issued on 22-11-91 for absorption of the non-petitioner No. 3 as Chemist under the Directorate of.Agriculture Marketing. 12. The Director : of Agriculture Marketing declined to issue order of posting of non-petitioner No. 3 on the ground that he was. not having the qualification of graduation in. Science with Chemistry. 13. The GAD then thought of asking the Director of Agriculture to absorb the non-petitioner No. 3 in the light of Rule 10(1) of 1969 Rules. Subsequently an alternative was suggested for asking the State Enterprises Department to cancel the order declaring the non-petitioner No. 3 as surplus. However, without any final decision having been taken in this regard, on the basis of telegraphic direction of the Special Secretary, GAD, an order was ultimately issued on 3-6-91 for absorption of non-petitioner No. 3 as Assistant Manager in the State Enterprises Department at Rajasthan Rajya Lavan Udyog Didwana. 14. The petitioner has rendered over 27 years of service as Salt Inspector and fulfils the conditions of eligibility for promotion to the post of Assistant Manager. The post of Assistant Manager became available on 12-4-91 when Shri U.C. Purohit was relieved from that post on his promotion as Manager. The charge of the post was given to the petitioner on 12-4-91 itself. The State Enterprises Department wrote a letter to Special Secretary, GAD on 4-5-91 that the post of Assistant Manager is to be filled by promotion by convening DPC and this was reiterated in letter dated 6-10-91. 15. The charge of the post was given to the petitioner on 12-4-91 itself. The State Enterprises Department wrote a letter to Special Secretary, GAD on 4-5-91 that the post of Assistant Manager is to be filled by promotion by convening DPC and this was reiterated in letter dated 6-10-91. 15. Non-petitioner No. 3 has asserted that he has been given selection scale (2000-3200) and it does appear from the first list sent by the State Enterprises Department to GAD that the pay scale of non-petitioner No. 3 was 2000-3200. However, when the GAD considered the question of absorption of non-petitioner No. 3, his pay scale was indicated as 1640-2900 only. 16. The Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Surplus Personnel) Rules, 1969 have been enacted by the Governor of Rajasthan in exercise of his powers under Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Rules 3(f), 3(g), 6(A), 7(IA), 9 and 10 can usefully be reproduced : "3(f).- "Equated post" means a post declared by the Committee as equated to the post held by the surplus personnel immediately before his being declared surplus; 3(g).- "Equivalent post" means a post carrying an identical time scale of pay and involving similar "nature of duties and responsibilities; 6(A).- The Government may, by an order, delegate the powers of the Committee to the Member-Secretary of the Committee if it many deem fit, for purpose of rule 7 (]A) to declare a post or class of posts as equated to the post held by the surplus personnel immediately before his being declared surplus keeping in view the nature of duties, qualifications and pay scale attached to such post or class of posts belonging to Subordinate Services which are not within the purview of Commission/Ministerial/Class IV Services, all over the State. 7 (1A).- The Government may by an order, delegate the powers of the Committee to the Member-Secretary of the Committee in respect of absorption of all surplus personnel of the Subordinate Services all over the State which are not within the purview of the Commission and absorption of all surplus personnel of the Ministerial and Class IV service declare surplus in Jaipur District. 9.- Reduction in recruitment and Promotion on Allotment.-Where a service rule, for the time being in force provides for filling up vacant post by direct recruitment or promotion or both, including selection and special selection, the total number of vacant posts available for such filling up shall be determined after reducing the number of vacant posts filled in by appointment under these rules as a result of allotment by the Committee.. 10.- Qualifications.-In the case of surplus Personnel appointed under these rules as a result of allotment by the Committee : (1) for posts falling within the purview of the Appointing Authority the qualifications, academic, technical or with regard to the length of service and experience prescribed under the relevant service rules or Government orders for the time being in force shall be deemed to have been relaxed, and (2) for posts falling within the purview of the Commission, except permanent employees and temporary employees recruited on the recommendation of the Commission, the cases of those surplus employees who were absorbed on or after 1st January, 1954 but before the publication of these rules and who do not fulfil the academic- technical and other qualifications prescribed therefor shall be referred to the Commission for Concurrence to the relaxation of prescribed qualifications within six months from the date of publication of these rules." 17. A perusal of Rule 3(f) read with Rule 6(A) and 7(I A) shows that before a post it declared as equivalent post, the Committee or the Member Secretary, to whom the power of Committee is delegated, has to apply its/his mind to the nature of duties, qualifications and pay scale attached to the post or class of posts. This is with reference to the post on which absorption is contemplated. In view of Rule 3(g) a post can be declared as `equivalent post' only if it carries an identical time scale of pay and involves similar nature of duties and responsibilities. The Absorption Committee or the Member Secretary to whom the power is delegated by the Government, can allot surplus personnel to the services wherein equated, equivalent or lower vacant post or posts may be available for appointment. On receipt of the order of allotment for surplus personnel from the Committee or the Member Secretary, as the case may be, the appointing authority has to issue order of appointment of such person. On receipt of the order of allotment for surplus personnel from the Committee or the Member Secretary, as the case may be, the appointing authority has to issue order of appointment of such person. By virtue of Rule 9 total number of vacant posts in any service has to be determined after reducing the number of vacant posts filled by appointment under 1969 Rules as a result of allotment by the Committee. By virtue of Rule 10(1) the qualifications, academic, technical or with regard to length of service and experience, prescribed under service Rules, shall be deemed to have been relaxed in the case of surplus personnel appointed under 1969 Rules as a result of allotment by the Committee. 18. The object of enacting 1969 Rules was to protect the right of employment of persons who are rendered surplus to the requirement of a particular Department or service or cadre. However, absorption of surplus personnel of one Department in some other Department Service or Gadre adversely affects the carer prospects of the employee of other services or cadre and, therefore, the Rule m taking authority has designedly made provision requiring application of mind by the competent authority to the relevant factors before an order of allotment of surplus personnel is issued. 19. It is, therefore, evident that before a surplus employee can be absorbed, existences of an equivalent or equated or lower post is a must. The Absorption Committee or the Member Secretary, to whom the power of the Committee is delegated by the Government, must apply its/his mind to the relevant considerations specified in the Rules and then issue an order of absorption of the surplus personnel. Once an allotment of surplus personnel is made, the appointing authority is under an obligation to issue order of appointment. The requirement of academic or technical qualifications or of experience stands automatically relaxed in respect of certain categories of posts of which reference has been made in Rule 10(1). 20. Once an allotment of surplus personnel is made, the appointing authority is under an obligation to issue order of appointment. The requirement of academic or technical qualifications or of experience stands automatically relaxed in respect of certain categories of posts of which reference has been made in Rule 10(1). 20. The GAD which is required to undertake the exercise for absorption of surplus personnel Rues is clearly under an obligation to properly address itself on the question of absorption of surplus personnel's. This application of mind by the Absorption Committee or the Member Secretary of the Committee must be reflected from the record containing the proceedings for absorption of surplus personnel's. If the Court or Tribunal before which challenge to an order of absorption of a surplus personnel is made, on a perusal of the record finds that before issuing order for allotment of a surplus personnel for absorption, Rules have not been followed, a person adversely affected can certainly request the Court to strike down the order of allotment of surplus personnel or an order of appointment issued by the competent authority in pursuance of such allotment. 21. In the present case, the petitioner who has claimed that he is entitled to be promoted as Assistant Manager has come forward with a specific case that the absorption of non-petitioner No. 3 has been done in violation of the provisions of the Rules. In my opinion, he is clearly a person who possesses locus standi to file this writ petition for challenging the order dated 3.6.91. 22. Coming to the merits of the order dated 3.6.91 it must at once be observed that non-petitioner No. 3 had been rendered surplus as early as in the month of September 1990 but he was relieved from the State Chemical Works Didwana only on 10.4.91. The post of Assistant Manager became available on 12.4.91 when Shri Purohit was relieved on tccount of his promotion on the higher post of Manager. Therefore, at the time of declaration of surplus of non- petitioner No. 3 the post of Assistant Manager was not available in the State Enterprises Department. Obviously, therefore, there was no occasion for consideration of his case for departmental absorption by the State Enterprises Department. Therefore, at the time of declaration of surplus of non- petitioner No. 3 the post of Assistant Manager was not available in the State Enterprises Department. Obviously, therefore, there was no occasion for consideration of his case for departmental absorption by the State Enterprises Department. There is nothing on record to show that before May 1991 the GAD had at all thought of even considering the question of departmental absorption of non- petitioner No. 3. After the non-petitioner no. 3 had reported to GAD in April 1991, he was allotted to Agriculture Marketing Department for absorption as Chemist. Once that order had been issued by the GAD, the Director, Agriculture Marketing Department was under an obligation to issue order of appointment in favour of non-petitioner No. 3. He was under an obligation to do so by virtue of Rule 7 and IC(1) of 1969 Rules. The requirement of academic qualifications, experience etc. for the purposes of appointment of non-petitioner No. 3 as Ch-mist stood automatically relaxed by the deeming clause contained in Rule 10(1). Therefore, there was no justification for the Director, Agriculture Marketing not to have issued the order in favour of non-petitioner No. 3. The action of the D.rector, Agriculture Marketing in sending non-petitioner No. 3 back to the GAD was clearly contrary to law. At the same time, merely because the Director, Agriculture Marketing has sent back non-petitioner No. 3 back to GAD, it was not open to the GAD not to have insisted upon the Director. Agriculture Marketing to issue appropriate order in favour of non-petitioner No. 3 in terms of order of absorption issued on 22.4.91 Clearly the authorities of GAD failed to discharge their obligation under the Rules. 23. After the non-petitioner No. 3 was sent back by the Director, Agriculture Marketing, the Office had prepared the note to the effect that in view of Rule 10(1) the Director, Agriculture Marketing should be asked to issue appropriate order. Thereafter an alternative was suggested that the State Enterprises Department may he asked to adjust non-petitioner No. 3 by cancelling the order of declaring h'm surplus. However, without any order by the State Enterprises Department cancelling the order by which the non-petitioner No. 3 was declared surplus, the GAD proceeded to issue the order dated 3.6.91. This was done simply on the basis of telephonic order of the Special Secretary, GAD. However, without any order by the State Enterprises Department cancelling the order by which the non-petitioner No. 3 was declared surplus, the GAD proceeded to issue the order dated 3.6.91. This was done simply on the basis of telephonic order of the Special Secretary, GAD. Once the non-petitioner No. 3 had been allotted to the Director, Agriculture Marketing, it was not open to the GAD to issue second order of allotment of non-petitioner No. 3 without issuing order of cancellation of the previous order dated 22. ,.91. If the non-petitioner No. 3 was not having the qualification of Science Graduate with Chemistry for the purposes of absorption as Chemist and was not treated eligible for absorption as Chemist, he was not having the requisite qualification for absorption as Assistant Manager as well. However, what is more startling is that at no point of time the GAD had applied its mind with reference to Rule 3(f), 3(g) or Rule 6 or 6(A) and Rule 7 of 1969 Rules. There has been no consideration on the record as to whether non-petitioner No. 3 was being absorbed on an equivalent post. There is also no application of mind on the question as to whether the post of Assistant Manager is a post equivalent to or equated to the post of Assistant Chemist held by non-petitioner No. 3 before he was declared surplus. The casual manner in which the GAD has dealt with the question of absorption of non- petitioner No. 3, leaves much to be desired. 24. In my considered opinion, the order dated 3.6.91 is not legally sustainable and is liable to be quashed. 25. There is yet another reason why the order dated 3.6.91 cannot be sustained. Non-petitioner No. 3 has in his reply asserted that he was drawing salary in the scale of 2000-3200 at the time he was declared surplus. The order dated 1.10.91 passed by the Commissioner, State Enterprises Department, which a list of surplus employees was sent to the GAD shows the pay scale of the non-petitioner No. 3 be 2000-3200. Non-petitioner No. 3 has in his reply asserted that he was drawing salary in the scale of 2000-3200 at the time he was declared surplus. The order dated 1.10.91 passed by the Commissioner, State Enterprises Department, which a list of surplus employees was sent to the GAD shows the pay scale of the non-petitioner No. 3 be 2000-3200. However, when the question of absorption of non-petitioner No. 3 was considered for the first time in April 1991, the GAD considered the question of absorption of non-petitioner No. 3 and at that time it totally ignored the pay scale of the non-petitioner No. 3 as 2000-3200 and proceeded on the assumption that his pay scale was 1640-2900. As already noticed here in above, there has been a total non-application of mind of the competent authority in the question as to whether the post on which the non-petitioner No. 3 was sought to be absorbed was an equivalent post or a lower post. Clearly the petitioner as well as non-petitioner No. 3 both have suffered on account of the contravention of Rules by the GAD. 26. The Writ Petition is therefore, allowed. The order dated 3.6.91 is declared as illegal and is hereby quashed. Non-petitioner No. 2 is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Manager in accordance with the Rules and to pass appropriate orders within a period of four months of the submission of the certified copy of this order. The GAD is directed to reconsider the question of absorption of non-petitioner No. 3 strictly in accordance with 1969 Rules and then pass appropriate order for absorption of non-petitioner No. 3. Till then, the non-petitioner shall be entitled to wages and allowances in accordance with the prevalent rules. Parties are left to bear their own costs.Writ Petition Allowed. *******