S. D. SHAH, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner, a Telephone Operator, serving in the High Court of Gujarat, has by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, prayed for direction to the respondent authorities to treat him in the common cadre of Jr. Clerks from the date of his appointment and to give him seniority in the said cadre accordingly and to give him deemed date of promotion in the higher cadre and for other consequential benefits. Subsequently, by amending the petition, the petitioner has also prayed for direction to the respondent authorities to apply scheme as contained in Government Resolution dated 5th of July, 1991 and to give him higher scale with effect from the date he has completed nine years service in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 and for other consequential benefits flowing therefrom. ( 2 ) IN order to properly appreciate the claim of the petitioner for the aforesaid relief, relevant facts which give rise to this claim shall have to be stated. The said facts are as under : (i) It appears that vide Government Resolution, Legal Department No. TEL-1073/ 8231-D, dated 24th August, 1973, sanction was granted to the creation of one temporary post of Telephone Operator in the scale of Rs. 130-240 on the establishment of the High Court of Gujarat, Ahmedabad. Pursuant to creation of such post, the petitioner came to be appointed as Telephone Operator in the scale of Rs. 130-240, on purely temporary basis, until further orders, on the post created by the aforesaid Resolution, vide appointment order dated 1st of December, 1973. The appointment order further recited that his appointment was purely temporary and that his services were liable to be terminated at any time without notice. (ii) Pursuant to such appoint, the petitioner resumed duty and continued to work as Telephone Operator. Though, post was said to be temporary and though nothing is produced on record to show that it has been made permanent at any later date, the petitioner has continued to work on the post as such. It is pertinent to note that looking to the nature of work which a Telephone operator is required to perform in the establishment of High Court and need to attend a large number of in-coming and out-going local as well as outstations calls, it was certain that the work was of permanent nature. It is pertinent to note that looking to the nature of work which a Telephone operator is required to perform in the establishment of High Court and need to attend a large number of in-coming and out-going local as well as outstations calls, it was certain that the work was of permanent nature. The need of the post cannot be disputed and, in fact, continuance of such post till today would establish that not only the post was permanently required but was absolutely necessary post for the High Court Establishment. (iii) So far as the qualifications are concerned, it is pertinent to note that petitioner was a student of F. Y. B. Com. and had the requisite experience and knowledge of operating PBX Board as well as PABX Board. He was, therefore, selected by the High Court from out of ten candidates. (iv) It is pertinent to note that in the establishment of the High Court of Gujarat, prior to 1973, there was no post of Telephone Operator and it came to be first time temporarily created by the Government Resolution of 1973. Therefore, the Rules known as high Court of Gujarat Recruitment and Conditions of service of Staff) Rules, 1964 which came to be framed in exercise of the powers conferred by Art. 229 of the Constitution of India, do not make any provision for such post of Telephone Operator. The pay scale of Telephone Operator which was offered to the petitioner, viz. , of Rs. 130-240 was comparable to the pay scale of clerks/section writers, who fall within Class-III of the staff of the High Court. The clerks/section writers are the non-gazetted Ministerial staff bearing the very pay scale which was offered to the petitioner as Telephone operator. To be eligible for appointment to the post of section writers and junior clerks, a candidate under Rule 12 of 1964 Rules shall ordinarily be not less than 18 and not more than 25 years of age, must have at least passed the s. S. C. Examination recognised by Government with English as one of the subjects and he must have knowledge of typewriting in English with a minimum speed of 30 words per minute. Out of the aforesaid qualifications which are prescribed for the post of junior clerk/section writer, petitioner admittedly possessed educational qualification. Since he was overaged, the requirement was relaxed. Out of the aforesaid qualifications which are prescribed for the post of junior clerk/section writer, petitioner admittedly possessed educational qualification. Since he was overaged, the requirement was relaxed. He also did not possess the knowledge of typewriting in English with the minimum speed of 30 words per minute. Said requirement was not insisted for as he was to work as Telephone Operator. It may be stated here that under Rule 12 (2) there is power in the Chief Justice to relax any of the above qualifications in any case. It may be stated that since he was being appointed on temporarily created post of Telephone Operator and was possessing the requisite knowledge and training of operating PBX and PABX Board, he was appointed as such in the year 1973. (v) From the order of appointment dated 1st of December, 1973 as well as from the fact that the work attached to the post of Telephone Operator was of permanent nature and from the further fact that the said post of Telephone operator, though temporarily created by the aforesaid Government Resolution has continued as such till today, it can be safely assumed that the appointment of petitioner was a substantive appointment and was not an appointment by way of stop-gap arrangement or appointment in a leave vacancy or some fortuitous circumstances. The petitioner continued to serve as such and when he found that there was no avenue for promotion from the post of Telephone operator and that he belonged to an isolated post which did not belong to any cadre, he started making representation to the respondent authorities for consideration of his case for including his post in the cadre of junior clerk/ section writer and for giving him seniority in the said cadre from the date of his appointment and for considering him for promotion to the higher post of assistant. In view of the fact that the post of Telephone Operator was not one in existence in the High Court Establishment and was not covered by the rules of 1964, the High Court found on its administrative side a genuine difficulty of accepting the representation of the petitioner inasmuch as the post of Telephone Operator did not belong to the cadre of junior clerk/section writer and for such an isolated post under the Rules of 1964, there was no avenue of promotion nor could his seniority be fixed in any other cadre as he belonged to an isolated post. (vi) Pursuant to the representation of the petitioner, he was appointed as section writer on purely temporary and ad hoc basis with effect from 7th of July, 1982 vide order dated 6th July, 1982. Such appointment was subject to the condition that the petitioner should acquire the requisite speed of typing 30 words per minute within one month and that on completion of the said period, test will be conducted. He was required to appear and pass the written test (in English) within three months from the date of his appointment as section writer. It was further stipulated that in case of failure to pass the written test or acquiring the requisite speed of typing 30 words per minute, he will be liable to be reverted to his original post of Telephone Operator. It is pertinent to note that it was in response to the representation made by the petitioner that appointment was given to the petitioner in the cadre of section writer subject to the aforesaid conditions. It is the case of the respondents in the affidavit-in-reply that pursuant to his request for appointment to the clerical post, he was informed that he could not be treated as clerk under the existing Recruitment rules. The petitioner was personally heard and at the time of hearing, he has submitted that he can be considered for the post of clerk in case of his passing the test of typing and essay writing. He has also submitted that in case of his being appointed as clerk, he would not claim seniority over the clerks who were appointed before him. He has also submitted that in case of his being appointed as clerk, he would not claim seniority over the clerks who were appointed before him. It was under this circumstances that petitioner came to be appointed as section writer by the aforesaid order and before taking such decision it is clearly recorded that the petitioner had agreed not to claim seniority over the other clerks appointed before him. It is the case of the respondent that as stipulated in the order, typing test was conducted on 18th October, 1982 and the typing speed of the petitioner was of 7. 74 words per minute which was far below the requirement. Even further chance thereafter was given to the petitioner to appear in typing and written tests, but before that by application dated 12th of October, 1982, he has prayed that he should be sent back to his parent post of Telephone Operator and that order of his appointment as section writer should be cancelled. Since the petitioner himself wanted to go back to his post of Telephone Operator and since he never wanted to avail the benefit of being appointed in the cadre of junior clerk/ section writer, the petitioner was reverted to the original post of Telephone operator. He, thus, by his own conduct, deprived himself of the benefit of being regularly absorbed in the cadre of junior clerk/section writer at least from 7th of July, 1982. This conduct of the petitioner shall assume importance while considering the question as to whether any relief should be granted to the petitioner, and if yes, how the reliefs should be modulated. ( 3 ) IT is pertinent to note that thereafter the petitioner has continued to serve in the post of Telephone Operator and ultimately he has filed this petition in the year 1987 for the aforesaid relief. ( 4 ) DURING the pendency of this petition, two developments have taken place and it is necessary to refer to such developments. ( 3 ) IT is pertinent to note that thereafter the petitioner has continued to serve in the post of Telephone Operator and ultimately he has filed this petition in the year 1987 for the aforesaid relief. ( 4 ) DURING the pendency of this petition, two developments have taken place and it is necessary to refer to such developments. The State of Gujarat has vide its Resolution dated 5th of July, 1991, prepared a scheme of higher grade scales to deal with the problem of stagnation in many cadres due to absence of or restricted chances of promotions and since the said scheme provides for grant of higher scale of pay on completion of nine years of service in the same scale without any promotion, the petitioner has by amending the petition prayed for the additional relief already referred to hereinabove. ( 5 ) IT appears that in view of the orders contained in the Government corrigendum, Legal Department, No. HCT-1987/4435/d, dated 19th November, 1991, the High Court of Gujarat has in exercise of the powers conferred under article 229 of the Constitution of India, and with the approval of the Governor of Gujarat, made certain amendments in the Schedule annexed to the notification of the High Court No. 1308/87 dated July 3, 1987. By the said Notification, the post of Telephone Operator is ordered to be included in the cadre of junior clerk. Secondly, it is provided that the junior clerk appointed as Telephone Operator should be paid a special pay of Rs. 40. 00 per month with effect from 1st of January, 1991. The Corrigendum issued by the High Court of Gujarat on 27th of November, 1991, unmistakably provides that hitherto isolated post of Telephone Operator will be included in the cadre of junior clerk. It would mean that the post of Telephone operator was one which did not belong to any cadre and the need was felt by the high Court to include the same in the cadre of junior clerk/section writer. It is pertinent to note that the Notification does not specify as to from which date the post of Telephone Operator is to be treated as included in the cadre of junior clerk. However, from the second stipulation that persons employed on the post of Telephone operator shall be paid a special pay of Rs. 40. It is pertinent to note that the Notification does not specify as to from which date the post of Telephone Operator is to be treated as included in the cadre of junior clerk. However, from the second stipulation that persons employed on the post of Telephone operator shall be paid a special pay of Rs. 40. 00 per month with effect from 1-1- 1991, it is contended before this Court that such inclusion of the post of Telephone operator in the cadre of junior clerk should also be made effective from 1st of january, 1991. In the alternative, it is submitted that the Notification cannot be given retrospective efect so as to treat the inclusion of the post of Telephone operator in the cadre of junior clerk from the very inception. This Notification also shall have to be properly applied while dealing with the submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. ( 6 ) IT must also be mentioned that the petitioner has referred to and relied upon instances of other department of State/central Governments, where post of Telephone operator is treated as equivalent to the post of junior clerk or is merged in the cadre of junior clerk so as to provide material to this Court to reason by analogy and to support his submission of equal treatment in the matter of employment. The petitioner has in this connection referred to the Resolution of Directorate General, All India radio, dated 24th of March, 1975 and to the Resolution of State of Gujarat, industries Mines and Power Department, dated 23rd of June, 1976, where the designation of the Telephone Operator is changed to that of junior clerk in the same scale of Rs. 260-400. Incidentally, reference was also made to an unreported decision of this Court dated 21st of October, 1992, in Special Civil Application No. 6649 of 1987, wherein this Court has taken the view that post of Clerk-cum-Telephone operator in the office of Panchayat was for all purposes equivalent to a post of clerk and thereby the Court has extended all benefits to the Telephone Operator which were available to a person belonging to the cadre of Clerk. This decision is pressed into service once again to enable the Court to reason by analogy. This decision is pressed into service once again to enable the Court to reason by analogy. ( 7 ) IN response to the rule nisi issued by this Court, the respondents have appeared and filed the affidavit-in-reply of Assistant Registrar and the stand of the respondents is that the petitioner cannot be treated as having been appointed in the cadre of junior clerk/section writer nor can he be assigned seniority in the gradation list of junior clerk nor was he entitled to any promotion as he was appointed on an isolated and temporarily created post. It is their case that the nature of duties of the Telephone operator are entirely different from that of clerks, the method of recruitment was also different from that of clerk. It was further submitted that even for promotional avenues, a clerk is required to pass Lower Standard Departmental Examination, while petitioner having been appointed on an isolated post cannot claim any benefit of even appearing at such examination. It is their case that since petitioner was not born on the clerical cadre, he cannot get entry in the clerical cadre and that he shall have to stay as Telephone Operator till the post of Telephone Operator came to be included in the cadre of junior clerk in the year 1991. It is their further case that no deemed date of promotion can also be given to the petitioner because he never belonged to the cadre of junior clerk and, therefore, even if persons from the said cadre were promoted, he was not entitled to be promoted. It is their further case that even if deemed date of promotion is to be given to the petitioner the same cannot be granted in this petition inasmuch as petitioner has failed to implead as necessary parties those persons who are likely to be affected by grant of such relief and in absence of such necessary parties, no relief should be granted to the petitioner. It is their further case that having regard to the fact that service of the High Court staff is considered at par with that of Secretariat Staff, necessary enquiry was made from the State Government on the question as to whether the petitioner can be said to be belonging to the cadre of Junior Clerk and as to whether he was eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant, and the Government has clarified the position as under : (1) The post of Telephone Operator for the PBX Board of Sachivalay was sanctioned in the pay scale of Rs. 260-400 (Pre-revised) under Road and Building department. (2) The Recruitment Rules for the said post have been framed by the said Department. (3) There is no promotional outlet for the Telephone Operator, and (4) the Telephone Operators are not considered on the common cadre of clerkstypist. ( 8 ) IN the aforesaid fact situation and the pleadings of the parties, this Court is called upon to decide the question as to whether the post of Telephone Operator in the establishment of High Court should be treated as an isolated post or should be treated as one in the general cadre of clerks and secondly as to whether petitioner who was appointed on such isolated post should be granted any relief of absorption in the cadre of Junior Clerk with effect from the date of his appointment or any subsequent date so as to entitle him to fixation of his seniority in the said cadre and consequent benefits of promotion, pay scale etc. ( 9 ) FROM the aforesaid rival submissions made by the learned Counsel, appearing for the parties following vital and fundamental questions arise for my consideration: (1) Is holder of an isolated post not belonging to any cadre and not having any promotional avenue liable to stagnate on the same post for all time to come in absence of his absorption in the regular cadre ? (2) Accepting that right to promotion or grant of higher scale of pay is not a vested right of an employee, is there a Constitutional or other obligation on an employer to provide promotional avenues and/or higher grade of scale at some reasonable interval of service so as to ensure real and equal opportunity of employment ? (2) Accepting that right to promotion or grant of higher scale of pay is not a vested right of an employee, is there a Constitutional or other obligation on an employer to provide promotional avenues and/or higher grade of scale at some reasonable interval of service so as to ensure real and equal opportunity of employment ? Or in alternative, can Court of law in exceptional case of isolated post and incumbent thereof stagnating on such post for unreasonably longer period, issue direction to do substantial justice so as to belatedly provide equality of opportunity to an employee ? (3) Would principle of estoppel by conduct disentitle the petitioner to claim any relief of absorption in the cadre of Junior Clerk/section Writer at least till july 1982 or for the reasonable period thereafter ? and (4) What relief should be granted and how it could be modulated. Re-questions Nos. 1 and 2 : ( 10 ) IN service jurisprudence, the term cadre has a definite legal connotation. In the legal sense, the word cadre is not synonymous with service. Fundamental rule 9 (4) defines the word cadre to mean the strength of a service or part of a service sanctioned as a separate unit. It is open to the Government to constitute as many cadres in any particular service as it may choose according to the administrative convenience and expediency. However, when the incumbents holding the post are not interchangeable and when they do not perform the same duties, do not carry the same responsibilities, do not draw the same pay, do not possess the same qualification, ordinarily the irresistible conclusion is that they constitute different cadres of the service. However, when qualifications for the post are same, pay scale is similar, and when some other persons have already been absorbed in the cadre by relaxation of some requirement of the rules, whether claim of a person who has been appointed on an isolated post not belonging to any cadre for being included in the cadre of junior clerk be considered or not, is a question. ( 11 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of O. P. Singla v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1984 SC 1595 . ( 11 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of O. P. Singla v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1984 SC 1595 . In the said case the Supreme Court was called upon to decide the question of inter se seniority between promotees and direct recruits of Judicial Officers of Delhi. On the one hand there was claim of promotees Additional District and Sessions Judges of Delhi, who were working in temporary posts which were created by the Delhi Administration and on the other hand there was claim of direct recruits, regularly appointed as Members of the delhi Higher Judicial Service. The Court was also required to consider various provisions of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970 framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. The Court referred to the definition of "cadre Post" contained in Rule 2 (b) to mean any post specified in the Schedule and includes a temporary post carrying the same designation as that of any of the posts specified in the Schedule and any other temporary post declared as cadre post by the Administrator. The question was as to whether Additional District Sessions judges of Delhi who were appointed on temporary posts created by Delhi administration could be said to be Members of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service or persons holding any cadre post. Though, all the three Judges who constituted the Bench concurred in their conclusion, there was disagreement on the interpretation of some of the provisions interpreting the definition of "cadre Post". Chief Justice Chandrachud speaking for the majority found that first part of the definition provides that Cadre Post means a post specified in the Schedule. Posts which are specified in the Schedule are posts in the Service. Therefore, by reason of the first part of the definition, posts in the Service are Cadre Posts. The second part of the definition provides that Cadre Post includes a temporary post carrying the same designation as that of any of the posts specified in the Schedule. The court found this provision is consequential to and in consonance with Rule 16 of the Rules. Since it was permissible under that Rule to create temporary posts in the Service, such posts are also regarded as Cadre Posts. The court found this provision is consequential to and in consonance with Rule 16 of the Rules. Since it was permissible under that Rule to create temporary posts in the Service, such posts are also regarded as Cadre Posts. It would have been anomalous to treat a post in the Service as an ex-cadre post merely for the reason that the post was temporary. Normally, an ex-cadre post means a post outside the cadre of posts comprised in a Service. Therefore, all posts in the Service, whether permanent or temporary, are generally regarded as Cadre Posts. The Court noticed that regardless of the normal pattern of service rules, what was important was that rule 2 (b) has the limited effect of making every post in the Service, whether the post is permanent or temporary a Cadre Post. Having so ascertained the meaning of the word "cadre Post" in the context of the relevant Rules, the Supreme Court made the following observations in Para 26 of the Report :"26. The pre-requisite of the right to inclusion in a common list of seniority is that all those who claim that right must, broadly, bear the same characteristics. The mere circumstance that they hold posts which carry the same designation will not justify the conclusion that they belong to the same class. Persons who are appointed or promoted on an ad hoc basis for fortuitous reasons or by way of a stop-gap arrangement cannot rank for purposes of seniority with those who are appointed to their posts in strict conformity with the rules of recruitment, whether such latter class of posts are permanent or temporary. The rules in the instant case do not require that persons belonging to the former category have to satisfy any particular prescription like consultation with the high Court. We are informed that in practice, persons who are promoted to the Delhi higher Judicial Service on an ad hoc basis or for fortuitous reasons or by way of a stopgap arrangement are appointed ony after their names are cleared or approved by the high Court. That may or may not be so. The point of the matter is that there is no provision in the Rules which requires that such appointments must also be made in accordance with any set formula. That may or may not be so. The point of the matter is that there is no provision in the Rules which requires that such appointments must also be made in accordance with any set formula. The courtesy shown by the authorities to the High court when certain appointments are made, is one thing : The obligation imposed by the Rules on the authorities that the High Court shall be consulted when certain other appointments are made, is quite another. "having so stated the position of law on the question as to whether such appointees on the temporary posts should be treated as belonging to Judicial Service, the court recorded its conclusion :"thus, persons belonging to the Delhi Judicial Service who are appointed to temporary posts of Additional District and Sessions Judges on an ad hoc basis or for fortuitous reasons or by way of a stop-gap arrangement, constitute a class which is separate and distinct from those who are appointed to posts in the Service in strict conformity with the rules of recruitment. In view of this, the former class of promotees cannot be included in the list of seniority of officers belonging to the Service. "on the facts of the case, the Court found that the Administrator created temporary posts in the Service. The appointments were neither ad hoc nor fortuitous nor in the nature of a stop-gap arrangement. Such persons have been officiating continuously without a break as Additional District and Sessions Judges for a long number of years. Having so recorded the conclusion, the Court made following observations :"it is both unrealistic and unjust to treat them as aliens to the Service merely because the authorities did not wake up to the necessity of converting the temporary posts into permanent ones, even after some of the promotees had worked in those posts from five to twelve years. Considering the history of the Delhi Higher judicial Service, it is clear that the phrase till further orders in the appointment order of the said promotees is only a familiar official device to create and perpetuate temporary posts in the service when the creation of permanent posts is a crying necessity. Considering the history of the Delhi Higher judicial Service, it is clear that the phrase till further orders in the appointment order of the said promotees is only a familiar official device to create and perpetuate temporary posts in the service when the creation of permanent posts is a crying necessity. The fact that temporary posts created in the service under R. 16 (1) had to be continued for years on and shows that the work assigned to the holders of those posts was, at least at some later stage, no longer of a temporary nature. And yet, instead of converting the temporary posts into permanent ones, the authorities slurred over the matter and imperilled, though unwittingly, the reasonable expectations of the promotees. unwittingly because, no one appears to have been interested in belittling the contribution of the promotees who held temporary posts in the Service or in consciously jeopardising their prospects. The tragedy is that no one was interested in anything at all. " ( 12 ) IN the context of the aforesaid observations, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner very convincingly urged that though the post of Telephone operator was created temporarily in the year 1973, it has continued to exist till date. The need of the post and its continuity was never questioned or doubted. The appointment of the incumbent on the post was not temporary or ad hoc or fortuitous or in the nature of a stop-gap arrangement. The petitioner-appointee has continued to work on the post continuously without a break for a long number of years. Had the Authorities awaken from its slumber and accepted the necessity of a permanent post, the post would have become a post belonging to the service or belonging to a cadre. He further pointed out that the post of Telephone Operator was in every respect equivalent to the post of Junior Clerk/section Writer inasmuch as excepting the requirement of typing speed all other requirements were and could have been satisfied by the petitioner. The petitioner who is claiming a right of his inclusion in the cadre of Junior Clerk/section Writer bears the same characteristics. The pay scale of the two posts was same, educational qualification was same and the requirement of typing speed was in the case of a Telephone Operator sufficiently off set by his possessing the knowledge of operating the PBX/pabx Boards. The pay scale of the two posts was same, educational qualification was same and the requirement of typing speed was in the case of a Telephone Operator sufficiently off set by his possessing the knowledge of operating the PBX/pabx Boards. Such an incumbent acquires necessary training for operating the PBX/pabx Boards. It is expected of him that he has to be on the Board for all times. From the workload, it transpired that at least two and half posts were required while the petitioner alone was working and as Telephone Operator he was required to come in contact with public and his duties were sensitive and of responsible nature. The petitioner has also undergone the process of selection and he was interviewed and selected and, therefore, in his submission it was not possible or permissible for the respondents to treat him as not belonging to the cadre of Junior Clerk/section Writer or as belonging to an isolated cadre. In my opinion, it shall have to be accepted that under the extant Rules of 1964, there was no post of Telephone Operator. The post was for the first time temporarily created in the year 1973. In fact, the continued need of the post cannot be doubted and the creation of permanent post of Telephone operator was a crying necessity. Since the post of Telephone Operator was not specified as belonging to Class-III posts, it cannot be said to belong to that cadre. No separate cadre of Telephone Operator was created by Administration. The respondents have failed to establish that the post of Telephone Operator was an excadre post. Neither cadre was created nor ex-cadre post was created. Simply a temporary post was created and excepting one requirement of typing speed, temporarily created post would fit in in the cadre of Junior Clerk/section Writer. Under the relevant rules, namely, High Court of Gujarat (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Staff) Rules, 1964, power is given to the Registrar to make appointment even outside the Rules. Under Rule 19 of the said Rules of 1964, the Registrar, if he deems it necessary, may, with the previous approval of the Chief Justice, directly appoint Clerks on the establishment of the lower Courts as Junior Clerks in the office of the High Court. Under Rule 19 of the said Rules of 1964, the Registrar, if he deems it necessary, may, with the previous approval of the Chief Justice, directly appoint Clerks on the establishment of the lower Courts as Junior Clerks in the office of the High Court. Under Rule 20 recruitment to the posts of stenographers, Translators and Librarian shall be made in such manner as the chief Justice may by general or special order direct. Similarly, power of relaxation of requirement is given under Rules 30 to 32. Rule 41 of the said Rules provide that in respect of all such matters regarding the conditions of service of Court servants for which no provision or insufficient provision has been made in these rules, the rules and orders for the time being in force and applicable to servants holding corresponding posts in the Government of Gujarat shall regulate the conditions of service to Court servants subject to such modifications, variations, and exceptions as may be made from time to time. Based on the aforesaid provisions, it was not impossible for the respondents to take necessary steps to provide for inclusion of the solitary post of Telephone Operator in the cadre of Junior Clerk/ section Writer or to encadre such isolated post so that the incumbent of the post is not in every respect isolated, stagnated and deprived of the usual promotional benefits - the only yearning and craving of an incumbent of post in the Government service. The status quo in service for all time to come brings about frustrations and result into inefficiency and indifference towards duties. The prolonged continuation in the same post with no possibility of any better prospects would mar the future of the incumbent. This reality was accepted by the High Court when the petitioner was sought to be absorbed in the cadre of Junior Clerk/section Writer. This fact in my opinion, is an important fact and due weightage shall have to be given to it while considering the question of grant of relief to the petitioner. This reality was accepted by the High Court when the petitioner was sought to be absorbed in the cadre of Junior Clerk/section Writer. This fact in my opinion, is an important fact and due weightage shall have to be given to it while considering the question of grant of relief to the petitioner. ( 13 ) THE factors which are pressed into service against the petitioner and on which much reliance is placed by the respondents are that firstly the petitioner (Telephone Operator) belongs to an isolated post having no promotional avenue, secondly that he was not recruited in the cadre of Clerk, thirdly, from the cadre of Clerk for promotion, one is required to pass Lower Standard Departmental examination for becoming Assistants while no such examination is prescribed for isolated post. Fourthly, according to the respondents, the petitioner on his own representation was appointed as Section Writer under the existing Recruitment Rules and it was made clear to him that he could be considered for appointment to the post of Clerk only if he passes the test in Essay writing and Typing and he accordingly executed a writing to that effect also agreeing that he would not claim seniority over the clerks who were appointed before him. It was, thereafter, only that the petitioner was appointed as Section Writer purely on temporary and ad hoc basis and on probation by Office Order dated 6th July, 1982 with condition that he shall have to pass written test in English within one month from the date of his appointment and should acquire speed of 30 w. p. m. in typewriting within one month. It was also clearly stipulated in the order that if he fails to acquire the requisite speed or to pass the written test in English within the time stipulated, he would be liable to be reverted to his original post. The typing test was taken on 18th October,1982 and the speed of the petitioner was 7. 74 words per minute. Therefore, he was granted further time to appear for the Typing and Written Tests. The petitioner, however, submitted his application dated 12th October, 1982 stating that he wanted to continue as Telephone Operator and that the order of his appointment as Section Writer may be cancelled. At his own request he was reverted to the post of Telephone Operator. Therefore, he was granted further time to appear for the Typing and Written Tests. The petitioner, however, submitted his application dated 12th October, 1982 stating that he wanted to continue as Telephone Operator and that the order of his appointment as Section Writer may be cancelled. At his own request he was reverted to the post of Telephone Operator. According to respondents this conduct would disentitle the petitioner to any relief for absorption in the post. This fourth factor would be appropriately considered while answering question No. 3. ( 14 ) IN my opinion, a situation of permanent stagnation with no prospect of improvement of service condition, not only brings about frustration but leads to slow and gradual development of sense of indifference, lethargy, inefficiency and results into irresponsible conduct. A situation of permanent adhocism for indefinite period in any post is not conducive to efficiency and better administration. Even resolution creating a temporary post is required to be periodically reviewed so as to decide as to whether the work is likely to last longer or is of permanent nature. If it is found that work is of a permanent nature and is likely to continue, such review must result into a further resolution to make the post permanent and further conscious decision to encadre such post if it is an isolated post. Total lack of review of such resolution for indefinitely and unreasonably long period results into subjecting a needy employee to rest content with what isolated post offers to him with assurance of stagnation breeding frustration. When the administration fails to review its resolution and temporary post continues for indefinitely long period and when there is no justifiable reason denying equal treatment to the incumbent holding an isolated post, judicial interference may at times be justified solely with a view to rendering justice to such isolated employee and not with a view to interfere with administrative action. Keeping in mind the fact that creation of a permanent post of Telephone operator was a crying necessity and the fact that the respondent slurred over the matter and turned a Nalesons eye, though unwittingly to the reasonable expectation of the petitioner of being absorbed in the regular cadre of Junior Clerk and also being conscious of the fact that the appointment of petitioner was neither ad hoc nor fortuitous nor in the nature of a stop-gap arrangement, in my opinion, the case of the petitioner was required to be considered for regularisation and absorption in the regular cadre of Junior Clerk/section Writer. In absence of the fact that in the year 1982 the respondents made conditional offer to the petitioner and petitioner accepted such offer and failed to fulfil the condition, this Court would have issued appropriate direction to absorb the petitioner in regular cadre and appropriately directed the respondent to relax the requirement of obtaining typing speed of 30 w. p. m. However, the said aspect of the problem will be discussed while answering question No. 3. Despite such conduct of the petitioner, in the opinion of this Court the petitioner should be granted right of regular absorption in the cadre of Junior Clerk at least from 3rd of July, 1987, i. e. , the date on which the post of Telephone Operator came to be included in the cadre of Junior Clerk. It is required to be noted that the Corrigendum to the High Court Notification dated 3rd of July, 1987 is issued and published on 27th November, 1991. But since the entry is substituted, there is no impediment, in directing the respondents to treat the petitioner as having been absorbed in the said cadre with effect from 3rd of July, 1987. The petitioner was admittedly working on the said post even prior thereto and, therefore, if the directions is given to absorb the petitioner in the cadre of Junior Clerk as post of Telephone Operator was redesignated and was merged in the common cadre of Junior Clerk, the respondents cannot make any grievance of such direction and this Court is, therefore, of the opinion that the petitioner shall have to be absorbed in the regular cadre of Junior Clerk from 3rd of July, 1987. ( 15 ) THAT would now bring this Court to consideration of question No. 2. ( 15 ) THAT would now bring this Court to consideration of question No. 2. ( 16 ) IN order to make good his submission that after absorbing the petitioner in a cadre of Junior Clerk, he should be offered deemed promotion to the higher post, the learned Counsel has made reference to certain decisions of the Supreme court. He has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Council of Scientific and Industrial Research v. K. G. S. Bhatt, reported in AIR 1989 SC 1972 . While dealing with the question as to whether Bye-laws 71 (b) (ii) of Council of Scientific and Industrial Research Institute Bye-laws apply to the facts of the case, the Court found that as per the decision of the Tribunal, the said Bye-laws was applicable and Tribunal granted relief to the respondent. The said respondent was appointed as Civil Engineer-A in Institute and was not considered for promotion for over 20 years. In the year 1978 categories of officers were reclassified and respondent was falling within "administrative" category. According to the Supreme court, the Administrative Tribunal wrongly interpreted the Bye-law 71 (b) (ii) and granted relief to the respondent but it thought it proper not to interfere as interference of the Court would defeat justice. The Supreme Court in this connection made relevant observations in para-9 of the report which reads as under :"respondent - 1 is not a lay-man. He is a highly qualified engineer. Although joined service with a Diploma in Engineering, he later passed Bachelor of Engineering (B. E.) and also acquired M. Tech. Degree and one more diploma (D. P. M. ). He was, however, left without opportunity for promotion for about twenty years. This is indeed a sad commentary on the appellants management. It is often said and indeed, adroitly, an organization public or private does not "hire a hand" but engages or employs a whole man. The person is recruited by an organization not just for a job, but for a whole career. One must, therefore, be given an opportunity to advance. This is the oldest and most important feature of the free enterprise system. The opportunity for advancement is a requirement for progress of any organization. It is an incentive for personnel development as well. (See : Principles of Personal Management by flipo Edwin B. , 4th Ed. p. 246 ). One must, therefore, be given an opportunity to advance. This is the oldest and most important feature of the free enterprise system. The opportunity for advancement is a requirement for progress of any organization. It is an incentive for personnel development as well. (See : Principles of Personal Management by flipo Edwin B. , 4th Ed. p. 246 ). "every management must provide realistic opportunities for promising employees to move upward". "the organization that fails to develop a satisfactory procedure for promotion is bound to pay a severe penalty in terms of administrative costs, misallocation of personnel, low morale, and ineffectual performance, among both non-managerial employees and their supervisors" (See : Personnel Management by Dr. Udai Pareek, p. 277 ). From the aforesaid observations it becomes at once clear that it is of prime importance for every modern employer to see that it simply does not hire a hand to exploit its services for life time, in fact employer employs a whole man for his whole career and such a man must be provided an opportunity to develop and to advance. It is, therefore, necessary for an employer to provide realistic opportunities for promising employees to move upward. Absence of such provisions brings about stagnation, frustration, low morale and ineffectual performance which in its turn would bring about poor administration. ( 17 ) LEARNED Counsel has also invited the attention of the Court to the case of dr. M. s. O. Z. Hussain v. Union Of India, reported in AIR 1990 SC 311 . The Court noticed that there was discrimination in the allowances admissible to doctors in medical Wing in Directorate of Health Services and non-medical group "a"scientists who belonged to non-Medical Wing. The persons belonging to non-Medical Wing were not entitled to promotion. In this connection, the need of promotion was once again stressed by the Supreme Court in the following words :"7. This Court, has on more than one occassion, pointed out that provision for promotion increases efficiency of the public service while stagnation reduces efficiency and makes the service ineffective. Promotion is thus a normal incidence of service. There too is no justification why while similarly placed officers in other ministries would have the benefit of promotion, the non-medical a Group scientists in the establishment of Director General of Health Services would be deprived of such advantage. Promotion is thus a normal incidence of service. There too is no justification why while similarly placed officers in other ministries would have the benefit of promotion, the non-medical a Group scientists in the establishment of Director General of Health Services would be deprived of such advantage. In a welfare State, it is necessary that there should be an efficient public service and, therefore, it should have been the obligation of the ministry of Health to attend to the representations of the Council and its members and provide promotional avenue for this category of officers. It is, therefore, necessary that on the model of rules framed by the Ministry of Science and technology with such alterations as may be necessary, appropriate rules should be framed within four months from now providing promotional avenue for the a category Scientists in the non-Medical Wing of the Directorate. "from the aforesaid proposition of law propounded by the Supreme Court, it becomes abundantly clear that there must be a promotional avenue to a post and creation and continuation of a post with no chance of promotion is not conducive to better and efficient administration. Even for an isolated post, therefore, some provisions shall have to be made either for offer of higher scale of pay or for some promotional avenue, so that spirit of frustration and stagnation is not generated which in its turn would bring about total inefficiency. ( 18 ) TO counter the aforesaid position, Mr. L. R. Pujari, learned Assistant government Pleader, has referred to certain decisions of the Court to which now reference is required to be made. ( 19 ) IN order to make good the submission that the petitioner belonged to an isolated post and never belonged to the cadre of Junior Clerk and was, therefore, required to be treated dissimilarly and unequally from other employees, Mr. L. R. Pujari, learned Assistant Government Pleader invited attention of the Court to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of The State of Punjab v. Joginder singh, reported in AIR 1963 SC 913 . Before the Supreme Court the schools run by Municipal Boards and District Boards were taken over by the Educational board of the Punjab Government. The teachers in the State employment were governed by the Punjab Educational Service Class III School Cadre Rules. Before the Supreme Court the schools run by Municipal Boards and District Boards were taken over by the Educational board of the Punjab Government. The teachers in the State employment were governed by the Punjab Educational Service Class III School Cadre Rules. The government of Punjab promulgated the Punjab Educational Service (Provincialised cadre) Class-III Rules, under which the provincialised teachers were treated as falling under a cadre separate and distinct from the teachers in the State Cadre. It is this action of treating State teachers differently from provincialised teachers, which was under challenge. The majority speaking through N. Rajagopala Ayyangar, j. upheld the differential treatment and made following observations in Para 23 of the report on which reliance is placed :" (23) As we have stated already, the two services started as independent Services. The qualifications prescribed for entry into each were different, the method of recruitment and the machinery for the same were also different and the general qualifications possessed by and large by the members of each class being different, they started as two distinct classes. If the Government order of September 27, 1957 did not integrate them into a single service, it would follow that the two remained as they started as two distinct services. If they were distinct services, there was no question of inter se seniority between members of the two services, nor of any comparison between the two in the matter of promotion for founding an argument based upon Art. 14 or Art. 16 (1 ). They started dissimilarly and they continued dissimilarly and any dissimilarity in their treatment would not be a denial of equal opportunity, for it is common ground that within each group there is no denial of that freedom guaranteed by the two Articles. "the soundness of the aforesaid proposition of law cannot be questioned inasmuch as from the inception service conditions of Provincialised teachers were distinct and separate from that of the State teachers. However, in the case on hand, the question is that of providing equal treatment to an employee not belonging to any cadre and holding an isolated post. Simply because he has been holding an isolated post with no chance of promotion in future, it cannot be said that he has forgone for all time to come his fundamental right of equal treatment guaranteed by Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Simply because he has been holding an isolated post with no chance of promotion in future, it cannot be said that he has forgone for all time to come his fundamental right of equal treatment guaranteed by Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The observations of the Supreme Court about fundamental obligation of an employer to make every sincere effort to avoid frustration, inefficiency and disinclination to work for better administration are apposite and are required to be kept in mind. ( 20 ) MR. L. R. Pujari has also invited the attention of the Court to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Air India v. Nargesh Meerza, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1829 where the question was that of validity of discriminatory treatment being given to Air Hostess. Justice S. Murtaza Fazal Ali speaking for the Court enumerated the relevant circumstances to be taken into consideration in order to judge whether a separate category has been carved out of a class of service. Mr. Pujari has, however, relie upon observations made by the Supreme Court in Paras 31, 33 and 37 of the report. In para 31 the Supreme Court has reproduced the observation of Ayyangar, J. in the case of Joginder Singh (supra ). In para 33 once again observations of the Supreme Court are quoted. In para 37 the Court from a detailed analysis and close examination of the case, summarised following propositions : . ( 21 ) THUS, from a detailed analysis and close examination of the cases of this Court starting from 1952 till today, the following propositions emerge : (1) In considering the fundamental right of equality of opportunity a technical, pedantic or doctrinaire approach should not be made and the doctrine should not be involved even if different scales of pay, service terms, leave, etc. , are introduced in different or dissimilar posts. Thus, where the class or categories of service are essentially different in purport and spirit, Art. 14 cannot be attracted. (2) Art. 14 forbids hostile discrimination but not reasonable classification. , are introduced in different or dissimilar posts. Thus, where the class or categories of service are essentially different in purport and spirit, Art. 14 cannot be attracted. (2) Art. 14 forbids hostile discrimination but not reasonable classification. Thus, where persons belonging to a particular class in view of their special attributes, qualities, mode of recruitments and the like, are differently treated in public interest to advance and boost members belonging to backward classes, such a classification would not amount to discrimination having a close nexus with the object sought to be achieved so that in such cases Art. 14 will be completely out of the way. (3) Article 14 certainly applies where equals are treated differently without any reasonable basis. (4) Where equals and unequals are treated differently, Art. 14 would have no application. (5) Even if there be one class of service having several categories with different attributes and incidents, such a category becomes a separate class by itself and no difference or discrimination between such category and the general members of the other class would amount to any discrimination or to denial of equality of opportunity. (6) In order to judge whether a separate category has been carved out of a class of service, the following circumstances have generally to be examined : (a) the nature, the mode and the manner of recruitment of a particular category from the very start. (b) the classifications of the particular category, (c) the terms and conditions of service of the members of the category, (d) the nature and character of the posts and promotional avenues, (e) the special attributes that the particular category possess which are not to be found in other classes, and the like. In fact, the aforesaid propositions of law are by now well accepted and none of the said propositions run counter to the proposition put forth by Mr. A. K. Clark, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. ( 22 ) IN fact, sixth proposition out of the propositions summaried by Justice s. Murtaza Fazal Ali in the aforesaid case of Air India (supra) enumerates the relevant circumstances which would justify carrying out of a post or a class of posts as belonging to separate category. The post of Telephone Operator was for the first time created in 1973. No qualifications for the post were prescribed. The post of Telephone Operator was for the first time created in 1973. No qualifications for the post were prescribed. However, same method of recruitment was followed and after undergoing the process of selection, the petitioner was selected. The petitioner did possess the educational qualifications and the requirement of maximum age was relaxed. He did not possess the requisite typing speed of 30 w. p. m. but as the same was not essential for the nature of work he was required to perform, he was employed. He did possess the experience of operating PBX and PABX Boards which was a qualification which may off set the requirement of typing speed. It is true that his post was not belonging to the cadre and it was not encadered as such. It is also true that it was an isolated post not having any promotional avenue. However, the question is as to whether he should be compelled to stagnate for inaction or delayed action on the part of the respondent. In the opinion of this Court there was no justification for denying right of absorption to the holder of such an isolated post for all time to come. ( 23 ) MR. Pujari has also invited the attention of the Court to another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shitla Prasad Shukla v. State U. P. , reported in 1986 (Suppl) SCC 185. Before the Supreme Court the question was as to whether an irregularly appointed person can claim seniority and promotion amongst regularly appointed persons. The appellant before the Supreme Court was irregularly absorbed assistant Teacher as he did not possess requisite qualification. The Board of High school and Intermediate Education, however, exempted him from such requirement of educational qualification. The Court held that till the exemption is granted the person is not qualified to be appointed. He would be lacking in the basic qualification for being appointed. This deficiency cannot be made good with retroactive exemption. The second aspect which weighed with the Supreme Court was that an employee must belong to the same stream before he can claim seniority vis-a-vis others. One who belongs to the same stream of lawfully and regularly appointed employees does not have to compete with those who never belonged to that stream, they having been appointed in an irregular manner. The second aspect which weighed with the Supreme Court was that an employee must belong to the same stream before he can claim seniority vis-a-vis others. One who belongs to the same stream of lawfully and regularly appointed employees does not have to compete with those who never belonged to that stream, they having been appointed in an irregular manner. Those who have been irregularly appointed belong to a different stream, and cannot claim seniority vis-a-vis those who have been regularly and properly appointed, till their appointments became regular or are regularised by the appointing authority as a result of which their stream joins the regular stream. At that point of confluence with the regular stream, from the point of time they join the stream by virtue of the regularisation, they can claim seniority vis-a-vis those who join the same stream later. The late-comers to the regular stream cannot steal a march over the early arrivals in the regular queue. ( 24 ) THE aforesaid proposition of law shall have to be kept in mind inasmuch as the petitioner was appointed on an isolated post. He cannot be said to be belonging to cadre of Junior Clerk as he did not possess the requisite qualification and it is not for the Court to weigh the equivalent qualification and to offset one qualification against another. He could have been, therefore, regularised in the year 1982. When an attempt was made to regularise him the condition regarding his possessing the requisite speed was insisted for. In that view of the matter the claim of the petitioner for absorption in the regular cadre to a date prior to 1982 even otherwise cannot be accepted more so when he has forgone such a claim by claiming volunary reversion to his post of Telephone Operator in the year 1982. The petitioner cannot claim equal treatment vis-a-vis those who were regularly recruited in the cadre of junior Clerk. In my opinion, this decision of the Supreme Court would partly answer the claim of the petitioner for absorption from the date of his appointment as telephone Operator in the cadre of Junior Clerk. Such a claim cannot be accepted inasmuch as his appointment was on an isolated post and he did not possess requisite qualification for appointment to the cadre of Junior Clerk. Such a claim cannot be accepted inasmuch as his appointment was on an isolated post and he did not possess requisite qualification for appointment to the cadre of Junior Clerk. When a chance was given to him to acquire such experience, he has failed to acquire and has subsequently forgone his claim for appointment to the cadre of Junior Clerk. Till 1982, therefore, his claim for absorption in the cadre of Junior Clerk in disregard of the seniority and right to promotion of regularly appointed Junior Clerk cannot be accepted, more so because such employees are not impleaded as necessary parties. In my opinion, the High Court took a correct decision to absorb petitioner in the regular stream of Jr. Clerk by offering him such post in 1982 subject, of course, to his fulfilling conditions stipulated in the order. The petitioner accepted such conditional offer and ultimately failed to fulfil the conditions. He was thus sought to be regularised but he did not avail of the opportunity. He rather preferred to go back to his irregular or isolated or out-of-mainstream post. Even if he had been regularised or absorbed in the cadre of Jr. Clerk, he could not have claimed seniority over those who were regularly recruited in the cadre of Jr. Clerks in the meantime. Therefore, petitioner in any case cannot get relief of his absorption in the main cadre of Jr. Clerk till 1982. ( 25 ) HOWEVER, for the reasons stated in paras 27 and 30, this Court is of the opinion that petitioner is required to be absorbed in the mainstream or in the cadre of Jr. Clerks at least from 3rd of July, 1987 as from that date he is as per High courts notification came to be included in the cadre of Jr. Clerk. In my opinion, though Notification is issued and published on 27th of November, 1991, entry is substituted in the Notification dated 3rd of July, 1987. Petitioner was working on the post of Telephone Operator continuously since his appointment on such post till that date, i. e. , 3rd of July, 1987. Clerk. In my opinion, though Notification is issued and published on 27th of November, 1991, entry is substituted in the Notification dated 3rd of July, 1987. Petitioner was working on the post of Telephone Operator continuously since his appointment on such post till that date, i. e. , 3rd of July, 1987. Therefore, directions to the respondent to absorb the petitioner in the cadre of Junior Clerk from the date post of Telephone Operator was re-designated and was merged in the common cadre of Junior Clerk if issue no injustice will be caused to any other class of employees as petitioner is even otherwise required to be absorbed in the cadre of Junior Clerk because of such re-designation. In fact, consistent with the reasons recorded by this Court in para 27 read with para 30 of the judgment, in the opinion of this Court, a situation like the one which the court is faced, cannot be tolerated. A situation where an employee is asked to face the status quo for entire career to come reminds one of feudal days of serfdom when a person born as a serf or a slave was born to die as a slave. To say that petitioner was employed in an isolated post and, therefore, shall have to continue for his whole career as such is to negate the very principle underlying equality of opportunity in the manner of employment guaranteed by Art. 16 of the Constitution of India. The concept of equality of opportunity is not referrable only to a right to job or opportunity of getting oneself engaged in a job. But, it necessarily refers to opportunity to develop and to advance. Even denial of such opportunity to develop and advance so as to render the whole career of an employee static and lifeless would in my opinion tantamount to denying equality of opportunity in the matter of employment. Denial of such opportunity is denial of an incentive for personal development. Denial of realistic opportunity to move upward brings about frustration, inefficiency and ineffectual performances. Therefore, in my opinion, some relief is required to be granted to the petitioner. This Court would have considered the case of the petitioner for appropriate relief after expiry of about ten years in service but unfortunately because of the conduct of the petitioner, such relief cannot be granted to the petitioner as early as 1982-83. Therefore, in my opinion, some relief is required to be granted to the petitioner. This Court would have considered the case of the petitioner for appropriate relief after expiry of about ten years in service but unfortunately because of the conduct of the petitioner, such relief cannot be granted to the petitioner as early as 1982-83. In fact, the conditional offer was made to the petitioner in the year 1982 which he accepted and unfortunately failed to fulfil the condition. He was appointed as Section Writer on purely temporary and ad hoc basis with effect from 7th of July, 1982 vide order dated 6th of July, 1982. Such appointment was conditional. The petitioner failed to acquire the requisite speed of typing 30 words per minute within one month. He, therefore, applied vide application dated 12th of October, 1982 that he should be sent back to his parent post of Telephone Operator. Thus, by his conduct, he has forgone the opportunity which was provided to him to get himself regularised. Therefore, after lapse of reasonable time from October, 1982, some directions is required to be issued. In the opinion of this Court, in the facts and circumstances of this case, such direction can be issued so as to be effective from 3rd of July, 1987, i. e. , the date on which the post of Telephone Operator is re-designated in the cadre of Junior Clerk. Accordingly, my answer to the first question is that holder of an isolated post not belonging to any cadre is not liable to stagnate on the same post for the whole career and that consistent with the opportunity to develop and advance, promotional avenue shall have to be provided and it is expected of an employer to provide for such opportunity. As stated here-in-above, such obligation shall have to be read on the employer as flowing from Art. 16 of the Constitution of India. An ideal model employer is expected to see that it is not simply hiring a hand but it is hiring or employing a whole man. A person is appointed for a whole career; a career with no opportunity to advancement and development, is no career at all. Such a situation is worse than serfdom. An ideal model employer is expected to see that it is not simply hiring a hand but it is hiring or employing a whole man. A person is appointed for a whole career; a career with no opportunity to advancement and development, is no career at all. Such a situation is worse than serfdom. Art. 16 of the Constitution of India does not encourage serfdom or state of slavery, where an employee is simply exploited with no realistic positive promise or opportunity to move forward. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that consistent with the underlying spirit of Art. 16 of the Constitution of India, a Court of law can direct the employer of an employee recruited on an isolated post to provide opportunity to develop and advance to holder of such post so that equality of opportunity in the matter of employment is not denied to such an employee. Consistent with this principle, I would direct the respondent to absorb regularly the petitioner in the cadre of Junior Clerk with effect from 3-7-1987 and to count his seniority in the said cadre with that date and to provide other benefits in the same cadre flowing from his absorption in the said cadre. (Rest of the Judgement is not material for the Reports.) .