(1) LEAVE granted (2) ON 1/1/1991 when the post of accountant became vacant, Ashok Kumar, fourth respondent had staked his claim for consideration of his case for promotion contending that he was appointed on 29/11/1976 as octroi moharrir in the pay scale of Rs. 110-250 and that he was posted as a clerk on 1/3/1984. By the proceedings of the competent authority, the post of octroi moharrir and clerks were redesignated as clerks in the year 1982. Consequently he was working as a clerk from 29/11/1976. The post of clerk g is a feeder post for consideration to the vacancy of accountant. He being senior to the appellant, is better situated to be considered for the post of accountant. His claim was negatived. Consequently, when he approached the High court of Himachal Pradesh in WP No. 267 of 1991 by order dated 22/11/1991 the High court accepted the claim and allowed the writ petition directing the Union of India to consider his case for promotion as an accountant vis-a-vis the claim of Kuldip Chand, which found favour with the a authorities. The case of the appellant is that he was appointed as sanitary supervisor on 29/8/1973 in the pay scale of Rs. 100-160. He was promoted as a clerk on 5/2/1979 and was posted as a storekeeper in the pay scale of Rs. 510-800. Ever since he has been drawing the same scale and is thus senior to the fourth respondent (3) THE question, therefore, for our consideration is: who is the senior in the post of the clerk? Admittedly, post of clerk is a feeder post for promotion as an accountant. It is not in dispute that the posts of octroi moharrir and the clerk were fused and redesignated as clerks. In that view, it must be deemed that Ashok Kumar has been working as a clerk since inception, viz., 29/11/19766. The appellant admittedly was appointed as a clerk on 5/2/1979. The post of storekeeper though was a specialised post, the appellant had not been promoted to that post in his own right. When that post was vacant, the appellant came to be posted by way of fortuitous circumstances and continued to work in that post, which was otherwise than in his own right. It would not be a ground to claim seniority over Ashok Kumar who admittedly was a clerk from 29/11/1976. When that post was vacant, the appellant came to be posted by way of fortuitous circumstances and continued to work in that post, which was otherwise than in his own right. It would not be a ground to claim seniority over Ashok Kumar who admittedly was a clerk from 29/11/1976. The High court, therefore, was right in its conclusion that the fortuitous circumstance of the appellant working as a storekeeper in the pay scale of Rs. 510-800 cannot permit the appellant to have a march over the fourth respondent. (4) IT is next contended by Mr M.M. Kashyap, learned counsel for the appellant, that Ashok Kumar disputed the correctness of the seniority list made on 23/12/1982 in his representations dated 10/1/1983 and 1/8/1983 which were duly considered and rejected. He allowed it to become final as he did not challenge the same till post of accountant became vacant. When it was rejected, he filed the writ petition in the High court. There is a considerable delay in claiming his seniority over the appellant. It is true that the seniority list was prepared as early as on 23/12/1982 but no vacancy had arisen thereafter and, therefore, the mere rejection of the claim for seniority does not disentitle him to claim his seniority over the appellant for consideration by the respondent-Union. (5) WHEN the aforesaid facts are taken into consideration, it would be obvious that the preparation of seniority list per se was illegal. Therefore, the mere fact that he did not challenge the seniority list, which was illegally prepared, till he was aggrieved for non-consideration of the claim to the post of accountant, his legitimate right to be considered cannot be denied. Under these circumstances, the delay is of no consequence for considering the claims of Ashok Kumar for the post of accountant (6) THE appeal is dismissed. No costs