JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal by G.D. Sharma petitioner who had filed a writ petition for issue of a writ against the Cotton Corporation of India and seven of its employees on the post of Office Manager (General) or the Office Manager (Accounts), complaining that they had superseded him in the matter of promotion to the post of Office Manager. 2. The petitioner entered the service of Cotton Corporation of India Limited which undisputedly is an instrumentality of the State covered by Article 12 of the Constitution of India, in November, 1973 as Accounts Assistant. He was confirmed on the post w.e.f. November 19, 1974. On June 16, 1979 a settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act was arrived at between the employees and the management of the Cotton Corporation of India (for short 'the Corporation' hereinafter), which was given retrospective effect from October 1, 1977. The post which the petitioner held was redesignated as Senior Assistant under the settlement. The settlement provided for bifurcation of the cadre into Accounts cadre and General cadre and it was decided that separate zonewise seniority will be maintained for Accounts and General Cadres. 3. The petitioner contended that prior to the aforesaid settlement there was no separate cadre for the purpose of seniority or otherwise as Accounts Cadre and General Cadre and all the Assistants were in one cadre viz., General Cadre and the petitioner, though appointed as Accounts Assistant, he was a member of service in the General Cadre. The petitioner further contended that in 1975, prior to settlement, seniority list on all India level was issued in the month of July and the petitioner was at No. 46 in the list of employees working as Assistants whose pay scale at that time was Rs. 425-800 which was subsequently revised to Rs. 505-925, in accordance with the settlement. It was further contended that after the settlement, the Corporation prepared the zonal seniority list cadrewise as contemplated in Clause 19(a) of the Settlement. The seniority list was issued on March 1, 1978 showing the position as on December 31, 1977. It included names of different persons who were employed in different zones working in the Accounts and General Cadres. The Assistants, Upper Division Clerks and Lower Division Clerks were separated in the Accounts and the General Cadres and the seniority list was circulated accordingly. It included names of different persons who were employed in different zones working in the Accounts and General Cadres. The Assistants, Upper Division Clerks and Lower Division Clerks were separated in the Accounts and the General Cadres and the seniority list was circulated accordingly. It was also stated in the covering letter with which the seniority list was circulated that if no objection to the seniority list was received by March 20, 1978, the seniority and other details indicated in the list would be treated as final and no representation would be entertained afterwards. 4. The petitioner's name was shown in the list as Assistant in the General Cadre and not in the Accounts cadre. He was placed at No. 2 just below one V.P. Talwar and above respondent No. 2. As the petitioner was not aggrieved by his categorisation in the General Cadre and his seniority in that Cadre, he had no occasion to object to his categorisation or his placement in the seniority list. The categorisation and the seniority, thus became final accordingly to the petitioner. 5. According to the petitioner the President, All India Employees Council, Madras addressed a communication on April 17, 1978 to the respondent No. 1 about the seniority list and in response, the Divisional Manager (Personnel and Administration) addressed the communications dated June 20, 1978 stating the norms for fixation of seniority, issued to all Branch Officers separately. According to the petitioner, in this Circular it was provided that in case of general clerks desiring to work on the Accounts side the concerned Accounts Officer and/or the Accountant of the Branch Office should send an assessment report of the candidate concerned and it should further be countersigned by the Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts Officer. It was further stated in the Circular that change in cadre will be accepted only after aforesaid procedure is followed and it was also directed that the candidates who have finally given option to switch over to Accounts side or vice-versa would not be allowed subsequently to change their option under any circumstance. It was further stated in the Circular that change in cadre will be accepted only after aforesaid procedure is followed and it was also directed that the candidates who have finally given option to switch over to Accounts side or vice-versa would not be allowed subsequently to change their option under any circumstance. A copy of the Circular was not filed by the petitioner but he contended that it was clearly stipulated therein that the only method available to the existing employees for changing their cadre from General to Accounts or vice-versa was to give their option and it should be accompanied by the assessment report of the authorities and once the option was given it was irrevocable. According to the petitioner, he had never given any option for categorisation in the Accounts cadre. 6. On April 24, 1981, another seniority list was issued by the respondent No. 1 showing position as on December 31, 1980. In that seniority list, the petitioner was shown in the category of Senior Assistant (Accounts) instead of having been shown in the cadre of Senior Assistant (General). According to the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 had thus unilaterally changed the petitioner's cadre from General to Accounts. In this seniority list, the petitioner was shown at No. 2 under one Shri Ramji Bhargava, who was formerly working in Central Zone and had been transferred to Northern Zone. 7. According to the petitioner, the promotional channel for the post of Office Manager is from the post of Senior Assistants. According to the Settlement, the channel for the promotion to the post of Office Manager (General) is from the Senior Assistant and Stenographer Grade-I, in the ratio of 1:10. 80% posts had to be filled by seniority-cum-merit and 20% to be filled in the Limited Competitive Test (for short ''the LCT'' hereinafter). The channel for the promotion to the post of Office Manager was from Senior Assistant. 50% of the posts were to be filled in on seniority-cum-merit basis from amongst Senior Assistant (Accounts) with five years service, 25% by LCT and 25% by direct recruitment. 8. Thus, according to the petitioner he was entitled to be promoted immediately after V.P. Talwar who was promoted in January 1979, the petitioner being placed at No. 2 in the General Cadre. Further, instead of promoting the petitioner, respondents Nos. 8. Thus, according to the petitioner he was entitled to be promoted immediately after V.P. Talwar who was promoted in January 1979, the petitioner being placed at No. 2 in the General Cadre. Further, instead of promoting the petitioner, respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 who were also initially working as Assistants on the Accounts side were promoted as Office Manager (General) and the petitioner was superseded. As the promotion orders were not circulated in the Bhilwara Office where the petitioner was working, he did not come to know of them for quite some time. The petitioner also contended that he was also superseded in the matter of promotion on Accounts side and respondents No. 5 to 8 were promoted from different channels to the post of Office Manager (Accounts) superseding the petitioner. 9. The petitioner submitted a representation on September 15, 1979 against his supersession by promoting respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4. Reminders on October 3, 1979 and November 5, 1979 were also sent but nothing was done. On June 10, 1982, the petitioner sent another representation to the Chairman- cum-Managing Director complaining the unilateral change of cadre in the seniority list dated April 24, 1981. A reminder was again sent on August 5, 1982. When it also did not provide any result, the petitioner served a notice dated October 20, 1982 demanding justice. On December 12, 1982, this demand of justice notice was replied in which it was stated that by appearing at the LCT examination for the post of Manager Accounts Part I, the petitioner had voluntarily given his consent to be categorised in the Accounts Cadre and for this reason his seniority was fixed in the Accounts Cadre. 10. The petitioner contends that he did appear in the LCT for the post of Office Manager (Accounts) vide his letter dated May 13, 1977 but by that time, Circular for separate categorisation and preparation of zonal seniority dated March 1, 1978 was not in existence and therefore there was no bifurcation of the Cadre. It was reiterated by the petitioner that he had never voluntarily changed his cadre or opted for Accounts Cadre. The petitioner therefore filed the petition and prayed for quashing of promotion order of respondents Nos. 2 to 8, issue of a direction to promote the petitioner retrospectively w.e.f. the date prior to the respondents Nos. It was reiterated by the petitioner that he had never voluntarily changed his cadre or opted for Accounts Cadre. The petitioner therefore filed the petition and prayed for quashing of promotion order of respondents Nos. 2 to 8, issue of a direction to promote the petitioner retrospectively w.e.f. the date prior to the respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and to give him all consequential benefits including seniority, further promotions and other financial benefits on that post etc. 11. A show cause notice was issued as to why this petition be not admitted on March 1, 1983 and the petition was admitted on May 6, 1985. However, no regular return was filed till July 25, 1992 in the case. Even in this reply filed after nine years by Branch Manager of the Corporation no specific parawise reply was given and it was contended that the petitioner having been appointed as Accounts Assistant could not have been categorised as Assistant (General). It was contended that the petitioner was confirmed as Accounts Assistant on May 27, 1977 but he did not raise any objection even after last date for raising objection dated March 20, 1978 had expired. It was further stated in the reply that the petitioner himself voluntarily gave his consent vide letter dated May 23, 1977 and appeared for LCT for the post of O.M. (Accounts) Part I and qualified for the same in the month of January 1978. Subsequently, he passed Part II also. It was contended that the petitioner himself willingly appeared in the said examination is itself a proof that he had opted for Accounts Cadre. It was further stated that the petitioner's name was shown in the seniority list of Accounts Cadre dated March 1, 1978. This seniority list was not filed along with the return. However, a Circular of February 1978 was filed as Annexure R-1/1. It was contended that according to this Circular, the last date to raise objection was February 20, 1978 and no objection was raised regarding the petitioner's Accounts Cadre, and thus it became final. 12. In the rejoinder it was pointed out that respondent No. 1 had not communicated copy of the circular dated March 1, 1978 whereby the seniority list was communicated. 12. In the rejoinder it was pointed out that respondent No. 1 had not communicated copy of the circular dated March 1, 1978 whereby the seniority list was communicated. The petitioner annexed to the rejoinder, the communication dated March 1, 1978 along with the seniority list which was circulated along with it in which the petitioner's name has been shown in the General Cadre. It was also contended that no such Circular like Annexure-R-1/1 was issued in the year 1978. It was also contended that the Circular filed as R-1/1 was not genuine and it has not been brought on record that such circular was ever issued. 13. On January 6, 1993, the petition came up before the learned single Judge and he disposed of the same partly allowing the petition and holding that the petitioner was rightly categorised under the Accounts Cadre but he was entitled to promotion as Office Manager (Accounts) and he should be given the same w.e.f. April 27, 1983. The petitioner, aggrieved by the rejection of his contention that he belongs to the General Cadre and was entitled to promotion in that Cadre, has filed this appeal. 14. In the memorandum of appeal a specific objection has been raised to the learned single Judge travelling beyond record and deciding the case on the basis of certain documents which were not part of record but which appeared to have been shown to him during hearing. In Paragraph-7 of memorandum of appeal, it was specifically stated that after the rejoinder was filed by the petitioner refuting the allegation that any seniority list was ever circulated in February 1978 and challenging the genuineness of Annexure-R-1/1, no effort was made by respondent No. 1 to file the seniority list said to have been circulated in February 1978 in the Court along with the despatch Register showing that such a list was circulated. It was contended that the learned single Judge could not have taken into consideration or observed anything about the alleged provisional seniority list issued on December 10, 1978. There was no such document on record and the learned single Judge has clearly travelled beyond the record. The petitioner-appellant reiterated other arguments made before the learned single Judge. 15. It was contended that the learned single Judge could not have taken into consideration or observed anything about the alleged provisional seniority list issued on December 10, 1978. There was no such document on record and the learned single Judge has clearly travelled beyond the record. The petitioner-appellant reiterated other arguments made before the learned single Judge. 15. Looking to the fact that reference was made by the learned single Judge to documents which were not on record, the parties were allowed to file whatever documents they wanted to file in this Court and thus there are several documents filed on behalf of the parties and they have been considered with the consent of the parties in deciding this appeal. 16. The petitioner's averment in Paragraph-6 of the petition that before the settlement there were no separate cadres for the purpose of seniority or otherwise like Accounts Cadre and General Cadre and the Cadre was only one named as General Cadre and the petitioner though appointed as Assistant Accounts, he was in the one and only cadre viz. General Cadre has not been controverted either before the learned single Judge or before this Court. Nothing has been put on record or shown to us which would show that this allegation of the petitioner that the Cadre was only one prior to the Settlement was wrong. It is true that the petitioner was appointed as Accounts Assistant and was even confirmed on that post but it is also true that only one seniority list was prepared for all the Assistants and the petitioner was shown at No. 46 in the All India Seniority List. Allegations regarding this in the petition have also not been controverted. The provisions of the Settlement will have to be looked into and interpreted in this background. 17. The respondents had not taken the trouble of even putting on record the Circular regarding bifurcation of Cadre before the learned Single Judge. It was done in this appeal on November 14, 1995 by putting R-1/5 on record. At Clause (B), relating to designations in this settlement, revised designations were provided. The designation of the post of Assistant was revised as Senior Assistant (General and Accounts). If there had been any separate posts of Accounts Assistant or General Assistants, that would have been mentioned separately under this Clause. At Clause (B), relating to designations in this settlement, revised designations were provided. The designation of the post of Assistant was revised as Senior Assistant (General and Accounts). If there had been any separate posts of Accounts Assistant or General Assistants, that would have been mentioned separately under this Clause. It is clear that all Assistants were in one Cadre earlier and that Cadre was Assistant (General and Accounts). It follows from this that the Cadre of Assistant was one though some of the Assistants were working on General side and the others on Accounts side, because the post was only one, it goes without saying that it would have been interchangeable also. Bifurcation of the Cadre took place only after the Settlement. In Clause 19 of the Settlement, under the Heading - Service Conditions, not only a zonal seniority was provided but a separate seniority was directed to be maintained for accounts and general cadres under the Settlement. Thus separation could only have been after the Settlement and not prior to that. 18. Whenever a single cadre is bifurcated or divided into more than one cadre, the employees cannot be arbitrarily categorised in different cadres at the whims or caprice of the employer as it may play havoc with the position of seniority and promotional chances of the employees in the same cadre. It is incumbent on employer to give option to all the employees for getting categorised in one of the cadres in which the earlier cadre was divided and if it is not possible to accommodate all the employees in the cadre of their choice, the categorisation has to be decided by taking options in the order of seniority. There has to be rational criteria for division of an existing cadre into more than one cadres. Employees working in the single cadre in different Departments forming part of single cadre are interchangeable and a person working in particular Department in the same cadre may be required to work in some other Department in the same cadre at a particular time. Categorisation of such an employee cannot also be based on the nature of the work of his last posting because it may be that be that he happened to be posted there fortuitously. Categorisation of such an employee cannot also be based on the nature of the work of his last posting because it may be that be that he happened to be posted there fortuitously. Thus when the cadre was one an Assistant working on Accounts side or the General side, cannot be categorised on bifurcation of cadres only on the basis of his last posting. An Assistant in the single or common cadre cannot be put in the bifurcated cadre on the general side or on the accounts side without giving him option. There is nothing on record to show that such an option was ever given while bifurcating the cadre of Assistants (General and Accounts), or the post of Senior Assistant (General and Accounts). 19. The Circular dated February, 1978 produced as Annexure-R-1/1 and Circular dated March 1, 1978 produced as Annexure/7 with the rejoinder by the petitioner are in the same language. In fact it appears that in Annexure/7, the word February was scored out at two places and the word 'March' was inserted instead. It appears that Annexure-R-1/1 was not issued in the month of February but the same Circular was issued on March 1, 1978 and the last date for objections was changed to March 20, 1978 instead of February 20, 1978. 20. Fresh objections have been raised about the authenticity of Annexure-R-1/1 as it does not bear any dispatch number and no seniority list is annexed to it. Unlike this, Annexure/7 to the rejoinder bears a despatch number and dates and is also accompanied by a seniority list. As the respondent No. 1 has failed to substantiate its claim that seniority list was published and circulated along with Annexure-R-1/1 in the month of February 1978, we have to ignore this document and proceed on the basis of Annexure/7 only. 21. Since the matter is about 18 years old, it would not be proper to proceed as urged by the petitioner under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but we condemn in equivocal terms the tendency of respondent No. 1 to suppress certain documents from the Court and the attempt to mislead the Court by filing such documents. 22. A bare perusal of Annexure/7 dated March 1, 1978 shows that it was the first exercise of its kind undertaken by respondent No. 1 after the settlement. 22. A bare perusal of Annexure/7 dated March 1, 1978 shows that it was the first exercise of its kind undertaken by respondent No. 1 after the settlement. It talks of the zonal seniority list of different cadres. It also states that the seniority list was prepared on the basis of the information furnished by the Branch Office to the Head Office. It is implied in this that no options were asked from the employees; otherwise it would have been stated that the seniority list was prepared on the basis of such options also. The information furnished by the Branch Offices is also limited to date of birth, qualification, date of initial appointment, date of confirmation etc. which means it pertained only to position of seniority and not to categorisation in the separated cadres. The Branch Incharge was directed to circulate the seniority list so that any discrepancy noticed by any of the staff members with regard to ''date of retirement, date of birth, qualification etc.'', could be pointed out to the Head Office. The staff members were asked only to confirm the zone in which they had been placed. In the end, it was stated that if no objection was received by March 20, 1978, the seniority and other details indicated in the list would be treated as final and no representation would be entertained afterwards. The circular expected Branch Offices to point out discrepancies after getting the seniority list circulated amongst staff. It does not ask for any option but only by implication requires the affected staff members to raise objections before March 20, 1978. As in the seniority list annexed to Annexure/7, the petitioner was categorised as Accountant (General), he had no occasion to challenge it. It is, therefore, futile to contend that the petitioner being appointed as Assistant (Account), automatically became categorised as Senior Assistant (Accounts). 23. In the aforesaid circumstances, it was for the respondent No. 1 to satisfy the Court as to how categorisation in separate cadres could be done without giving option to the concerned employees and as to how categorisation made in the seniority list annexed to circular dated March 1, 1978, Annexure/7 could be unilaterally changed. The answer to this on behalf of the respondent No. 1 is that by appearing at the LCT for the post of Office Manager (Accounts), the appellant-petitioner had confirmed that he was in Accounts cadre. The answer to this on behalf of the respondent No. 1 is that by appearing at the LCT for the post of Office Manager (Accounts), the appellant-petitioner had confirmed that he was in Accounts cadre. As already mentioned, there is no evidence on record to show that the petitioner at any time after March 1, 1978 had opted for examination on Accounts side. Even otherwise categorisation once made and finalised could not have been unsettled by the appellant appearing for examination of the other cadre. There is no document on record to show that the petitioner had voluntarily given up his contention that he belonged to the General Cadre and not to the Accounts cadre. His appearing at the examination in the Accounts Cadre would not stop him from claiming a right which he had never given up. 24. For the aforesaid reasons, this petition deserves to be allowed. It is hereby allowed. The impugned order is set aside and it is directed that the petitioner shall be treated as belonging to the General Category and he was entitled to the promotion to the post of Office Manager (General) on the basis that after the settlement, on bifurcation of the cadre, he was Senior Assistant (General) with the seniority as is shown in seniority list annexed to Annexure/7, Circular dated March 1, 1978. As the petitioner has been promoted as Office Manager (Accounts), there should be nothing in his record which would deprive him of his promotion to the post of Office Manager (General). He can therefore be promoted directly to the post of Office Manager (General) w.e.f. the date he would have been promoted if he had been considered to be in the General category at the time when Mr. V.P. Talwar, his immediate senior in the list, was promoted and if the post was not available, then from the date the post became available immediately after the promotion of Mr. V.P. Talwar. The petitioner shall also be entitled to all the consequential benefits of such retrospective promotion including the financial benefits. His seniority shall be immediately below Mr. V.P. Talwar in the Office Manager (General). This shall be done within three months. 25. The appellant-petitioner desires to be compensated for this unnecessarily lengthy litigation foisted on him by respondent No. 1. The petitioner shall also be entitled to all the consequential benefits of such retrospective promotion including the financial benefits. His seniority shall be immediately below Mr. V.P. Talwar in the Office Manager (General). This shall be done within three months. 25. The appellant-petitioner desires to be compensated for this unnecessarily lengthy litigation foisted on him by respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 did not care to file reply to the petition for nine years and even after nine years, a slipshod reply without the relevant documents was filed and even at the stage of this appeal, no effort was made by the respondent No. 1 to put the entire relevant record before this Court. The respondent No. 1 throughout this litigation has played the game of hide and seek, did not respond to representation or the petitioner before filing of the petition and in reply to the demand of justice notice also evasive statements were made. We therefore impose Rs. 5, 000/- as costs to be paid by the respondent No. 1 to the appellant-petitioner as a consolidated cost of the petition and this appeal. The costs shall be paid within a month of this order.Order accordingly. *******