JUDGMENT 1. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner "on the averment that he has a right to be promoted on the post of Lower Division Clerk from the post of Class IV, from the date when he became eligible for it. The claim has been asserted relying on Rules 7 and 7(3) of the Rajasthan Subordinate Ministerial Service Rules, 1957, which envisages that 10% posts of Clerks will be filled up by departmental promotion from amongst Class IV employees. 2. The petitioner, who is a member of. Scheduled Caste, was appointed on Class IV post initially for a period of three months and was thereafter made permanent vide order dated 23.5.1983. It appears that the petitioner moved an application for acquiring further educational qualification, which was allowed and the petitioner passed his Secondary Examination in the year 1983. Thereafter on 18.4.1984, the petitioner moved an application for promotion from the post Class IV to the post of Lower Division Clerk and thereafter he made successive applications pursuing his case for promotion. On 2.8.1984, the Executive Engineer of the Panchana Irrigation Scheme, Zone II, Karauli seems to have recommended to the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Division, Jaipur for promotion of the petitioner on the post of Lower Division Clerk from the Class IV category. The recommendation for promotion was based on the fact that since 10% quota for promotion from Class IV to LDC is required to be done, the petitioner being eligible and the vacancy also being in existence, the petitioner may be promoted. It was reiterated by the Executive Engineer in his letter dated 13.11.1984, wherein it was requested to promote the petitioner as per the promotion quota. The petitioner appears to have pursued his case for promotion to the higher authorities thereafter but did not find favour with the higher authorities due to which he moved this Court for redressal of his grievances as some persons junior to the petitioner were promoted ignoring his* rightful claim. One such instance cited by him is of Khem Chand Sharma who is junior to him as Class IV employee, but had been promoted as LDC by order dated 20.12.1987. 3. The respondent, State of Rajasthan has not been represented by any advocate before this Court. A counter affidavit is, however, on record, a perusal of which indicates the stand of the State Government. 3. The respondent, State of Rajasthan has not been represented by any advocate before this Court. A counter affidavit is, however, on record, a perusal of which indicates the stand of the State Government. It has been stated therein that there are only 11 sanctioned posts of LDCs in Panchana Division II, District Sawai Madhopur, our of which six LDCs belongs to Schedule Castes. As such, the petitioner is not entitled to be promoted on the post of LDC as per the roster system. It has been added therein that there is no post of LDC lying vacant in this division and the case of the petitioner for promotion on the post of LDC would be considered as per the Rajasthan Subordinate Ministerial Service Rules, 1957 as and when vacancy arises. The most pertinent objection which has been raised in its counter affidavit is to the effect the he seniority of Class TV employee is maintained region wise (Circle wise) and in this connection, it has been stated that Khem Chand Sharma, who is junior to the petitioner had been working in the office of the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Dholpur which is under the administrative control of Bharatpur Irrigation Circle and, it was, thus, contended that the promotion of Khem Chand Sharma was given on the basis of Circle wise seniority. It has been further stated that the lien of seniority of the petitioner is in the Irrigation Circle, Jaipur and no one junior to the petitioner had been given promotion on the post of LDC in the Irrigation Circle, Jaipur. 4. When the above objections were pointed out to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it was submitted that the seniority of the Class IV employees cannot be determined circle or region wise basis as that would amount to superseding the rightful claim of persons who may be due for promotion. This fact was elaborated by giving an illustration that if an employee is due for promotion in a particular circle and on the verge of promotion if he is transferred to another region or circle, such promotion cannot be denied to him on the ground that there are persons working in the circle from before even though they have been appointed much later. It has been submitted that there is no provision under the Rules, wherein seniority is required to be determined circle wise, nor such procedure has been adopted by the respondents. Elaborating this point further, it has been stated that assuming such an arrangement is made circle wise for the administrative reasons and, if the staff is transferred from one place to another, that does not mean that the person having his seniority will lose such seniority when he is posted at a new place. It has been contended that if it is allowed to stand, the same is bound to result in arbitrary action and any employee who is senior may be transferred, one day prior, from one place to another, so that his seniority is freezed at the new place circle vis-a-vis the persons who have been appointed later on but may be working in the circle, from before. In the case of the petitioner, it has been stated that when he was transferred from Bharatpur Circle to Jaipur Circle, his seniority which was assigned to him during the period of his service at Bharatpur Circle cannot be curtailed on his posting at a new place at Karauli which was in Jaipur Circle. In support of this assertion, attention of this Court has been invited to the Division Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of S.W. Phodke v. Union Government 1980 (1) SLR 547 , wherein it has been laid down that if the initial appointment is not made region wise, but made on the basis of national level and an undertaking is obtained from the appointees to the effect that the services are transferable, then the seniority cannot be reckoned region wise, but it shall be on all India basis. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn an analogy relying on this case and has submitted that the preparation of seniority list region wise or circle wise ought to be held as invalid as it was held in the aforesaid case on the ground that it denied equal opportunity of promotion and, therefore, hit Article 16 of the Constitution. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn an analogy relying on this case and has submitted that the preparation of seniority list region wise or circle wise ought to be held as invalid as it was held in the aforesaid case on the ground that it denied equal opportunity of promotion and, therefore, hit Article 16 of the Constitution. Thus, it has been contended that the transfer of the petitioner from Bharatpur Circle to Karauli (Jaipur Circle), which was made by the State Government for administrative reasons, the same cannot and should not be allowed to come in the way of the petitioner by making him suffer by curtailing his seniority and denying him the promotion on the post of LDC. 5. It has been further contended that the promotion given to Khern Chand Sharma, who is junior to the petitioner, cannot be admitted to have been given on the circle wise seniority and, for all purposes, he stands junior to the petitioner, which is clear from the seniority list published on 18.6.1964 for Irrigation Division, Bharatpur which is under the Dholpur Irrigation Circle. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has shown the seniority list annexed to the writ petition and contended that it is evident from the seniority list that the name of the petitioner stands at Sl.No. 22, whereas the name of Khem Chand stands at Sl. No. 23. Hence, it has been submitted that if the person junior to the petitioner, had been promoted and the petitioner had been found eligible for promotion, there is no reason why his claim should not be accepted. It has further been added that since vacancy has been existing on the post of LDC, even today, the right of promotion of the petitioner who has been found eligible for promotion from the year 1984 itself, should not be denied the said benefit. 6. Having considered the rival contentions of the parties, I find force in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner that it would be unjust to prepare the seniority list circle wise as in that event the persons appointed subsequently may rank senior to the persons who are appointed earlier merely on the basis that he has been working in the Circle from before. If the appointment of the entire Class IV employees is made in the entire State, such seniority, in my opinion, should not be disturbed atleast in the department of the State Government. The averments to the effect that the vacancy on the post of LDC in Jaipur Circle is still existing and has also not been controverted as on this date and Rule 7 of the Rules envisages filling up of 10% of posts of LDCs by promotion in the Department itself, thus, I have no hesitation in directing that the petitioner should be given promotion to the post of LDC, if he is eligible in all other respects. 7. The writ petition is accordingly allowed with no order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******