S. K. PHAUJDAR, J. The three petitioners filed this writ petition under Ar ticle 226 of the Constitution of India against four respondents. Respondent No. 1 was the Administrator City Board, Ghaziabad. The other three respondents were Jagan Lal, Jagdish Prasad and Harishankar Sharma, all posted as Tax Inspectors under the City Board, Ghaziabad. The petitioners prayed for a writ of mandamus to direct respondent No. 1 to promote the three petitioners to the post of Tax Inspectors with effect from the dates they were entitled to be promoted. A further prayer was made for a writ of mandamus for directing respondent No. 1 not to allow respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 to work as Tkx Inspectors. 2. It was the case of the petitioners that they were working as bill collectors and tah-bazari moharrir under the City Board, Ghaziabad. The board had published a seniority list on 31-10-80 under which the petitioners were shown as senior to respon dents No. 2 to 4 bearing the case of Jagan Lal who was shown senior to petitioner No. 3 (Bhagirath Singh ). A copy of the seniority list was annexed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. This seniority list was acted upon and was also confirmed by the High Court in connection with writ petition No. 2137 of 1984 decided on 6-3-84. It was al leged that respondent No. 2 (Jagan Lal) belonged to revenue cadre and was posted as an Amin but respondents No. 3 and 4 (Jagdish Prasad and Han Shanker Sharma) belonged to ministerial cadre and were posted as store-keeper and L. M. C. clerk respectively. The three petitioners, how ever, belonged to revenue cadre. The post of L. M. C. clerk was subsequently designated as L. T. C. Inspector. The dispute arose on account of alleged arbitrary action of the Administrator, City Board, Ghaziabad, who promoted unqualified juniors to work as Tax Inspectors ignoring the case of the petitioners. Reference was made to a Government Order dated 10-4-50 (An nexure No. 2 ). The petitioners claimed that they were Intermediate passed and under the Government Order were qualified to be promoted as Tax Inspectors while respon dents No. 2,3 and 4 were only High School passed and were not eligible for promotion as Tax Inspector. 3. Reference was made to a Government Order dated 10-4-50 (An nexure No. 2 ). The petitioners claimed that they were Intermediate passed and under the Government Order were qualified to be promoted as Tax Inspectors while respon dents No. 2,3 and 4 were only High School passed and were not eligible for promotion as Tax Inspector. 3. It was further averred that on a rep resentation by one Jagdish Dutta, the Com missioner of Meerut Division, had decided that Hari Shankar Sharma (respondent No. 4) belonged to ministerial cadre. It was fur ther directed by the Commissioner, so far respondent No. 2 Jagal Lal was concerned, that if he was a junior he should be reverted. A copy of the order was annexed as An nexure No. 3. On 18-2-1985 the Ad ministrator directed that Hari Shankar Sharma should work as a clerk. This order is Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition. Respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 were working, according to the petitioners, without any legal authority as tax inspectors and the petitioners made representations to the Ad ministrator. But, in spite of passage of long time, no order was passed on the repre sentations. Subsequently on 25-9-86 a notice was given to the Administrator. A copy of the notice is in Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition. Through this notice a demand was made to decide the matter of promotion to the post of tax inspectors within a month from the date of notice. The petitioners No. 1 and 2 were called for inter view in 1982 for promotion as tax inspectors but on political pressure the interview was postponed and was never held in spite of repeated requests. It was asserted that the three vacant posts of tax inspector were al ready there. One more post became avail able on the reversion of one Inder Dayal. A further post was expected to be vacant on the retirement of B. S. Goel and that petitioners Ant Ram and Bhagirath Singh were persons of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes respectively and were en titled to promotion against reserved quota as well. 4. A counter-affidavit was filed by Hari Shanker Sharma (respondent No. 4 ). He asserted that he was appointed in the revenue cadre on 21-9-70 as lekhpal which post was also known as L. M. C. clerk. 4. A counter-affidavit was filed by Hari Shanker Sharma (respondent No. 4 ). He asserted that he was appointed in the revenue cadre on 21-9-70 as lekhpal which post was also known as L. M. C. clerk. One of the essential condition for appointment against that post was that the applicant should have passed the lekhpal examina tion. Hari Shankar Sharma claimed that he had passed the examination in 1969-70 but the certificate was not made available then. Subsequently he submitted the certificates and a copy thereof was annexed to the counter-affidavit. Papers were filed to show that for provident fund slip his post was shown as that of a lekhpal. Under the order of the Commissioner of Meerut Division, dated 19- 6-78 the post of Projection Inspec tor was named as Tax Inspector. The seniority list relied upon by the petitioners was prepared in the year 1980 covering the revenue employees/moharrirs and bill col lectors who were lower in rank to rank of the lekhpal and as such there was no question of the name of Harishankar Sharma being shown in the list as he was a lekhpal. He claimed by virtue of his initial appointment is revenue cadre which was a superior post in scale and rank was equivalent to the post of inspector, that Hari Shankar Sharma was senior to the three petitioners. The seniority list in question was totally ir relevant to assess the seniority of Hari Shankar Sharma. In the affidavit he described himself as a property inspector of the City Board Ghaziabad. He asserted that he was duly qualified for appointment as tax inspector and he was legally holding of of fice. He asserted further that the minimum qualification for appointment of octroi, tax or other revenue inspector was only a High School certificate. He claimed that he had passed an examination equivalent to Inter mediate examination. He asserted further that the Commissioner had illegally held, upon representation of Jagdish Dutta, that Hari Shankar Sharma belonged to the mini sterial cadre. This finding was without any basis. This deponent preferred a claim peti tion before the Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow, against the order of the Commis sioner. The Tribunal allowed the claim of the deponent and set aside the order of the Commissioner. The orders were annexed to the counter-affidavit. This finding was without any basis. This deponent preferred a claim peti tion before the Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow, against the order of the Commis sioner. The Tribunal allowed the claim of the deponent and set aside the order of the Commissioner. The orders were annexed to the counter-affidavit. This deponent further stated that on his representation and on recommendation by the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad, the State Government directed that the post of lekhpal clerk in Nagar Palika, Ghaziabad, was to be converted as that of property inspector in the same scale. This deponent claimed that his case was not of a promotion on appointment and he was not covered by the Government order in annexure No. 2 to the writ petition. 5. A counter affidavit was filed on be half of Jagan Lal (respondent No. 2 ). He made out a case that petitioners No. 1 and 3 (Ant Ram and Bhagirath) were appointed as bill collectors on 3-3-71 and 12-8-72 respectively. The other petitioner Ram Pal was appointed on 7-7-79 as tahbazari moharnr. The seniority list relied upon by the petitioners was illegal and void. An of ficer- in-charge of the City Board could ex ercise the powers delegated to him by the Administrator. He was never delegated with the power to determine seniority of the employees or to prepare the seniority list. The concerned seniority list was not prepared with the consent of the ad ministrator. Neither any objection nor any suggestion was ever invited. It was never placed in the notice board was never circu lated in the office. Moreover there was error apparent on the face of it. The date of ap pointment was the basis of seniority. This deponent (Jagan Lal) was appointed as Amin vide letter No. 7369 and had joined on 7-7- 69 and he should have been placed above the petitioners according to this date of appointment, in the seniority list. How ever his date of joining of the service was wrongly mentioned. A copy of his appoint ment letter was attached to the counter-af fidavit. The averment in the writ petition that the seniority list was accepted in writ petititon No. 2137 of 1984 by the High Court was not accepted. The deponent as serted that he was not a party to the said writ petition and the decision could not be bind ing on him. The averment in the writ petition that the seniority list was accepted in writ petititon No. 2137 of 1984 by the High Court was not accepted. The deponent as serted that he was not a party to the said writ petition and the decision could not be bind ing on him. The Administrator never accorded sanction to this seniority list. He asserted that not only himself but Jagdish Prasad and Hari Shankar Sharma also belonged to revenue cadre. 6. The respondent No. 1 also sub mitted a counter-affidavit which was sworn by the bill clerk Laxmi Narain. The deponent asserted that respondents No. 2 to 4 were legally working as a tax inspectors. It was stated that the post of tax inspector had been centralised and the appointment and other conditions are governed by the U. P. Palika (Centralise Service) Rules, 1966, Under these Rules the power of appoint ment vested in the State Government. It was further stated that with effect from 6-12-86 the minimum qualification for the post of tax inspector was that the candidate must have passed on B. A. examination from any University. The deponent stated that the petitioner Ant Ram was not entitled to be appointed to the post of tax inspector. The power of appointment lay with the State Government. 7. There is yet another counter-af fidavit on record filed on behalf of respon dent No. 1 it was sworn by Surendra Kumar, Law Superintendent of the City Board, Ghaziabad. The appointment of the petitioners as bill collectors and tahbazari moharrir was not denied. The seniority list relied upon by the petitioners was not con firmed in writ petition No. 2137 of 1984. The order of the High Court on that writ petition was not annexed to the present writ petition. The respondent Jagan Lal accord ing to his service book was appointed as an Amin in 1969. The respondent Jagdish Prasad was appointed as Girdawar/amin on 18-2-48 and was promoted as officiating tax inspector on 10-7-50. The respondent Hari Shankar Sharma was appointed as Lekhpal on 21-9-70 and thereafter worked as tax inspector (projection), on the basis of the order of the Commissioner who had from time to time sanctioned to creation of post of tax inspector (projection), temporarily. The respondent Hari Shankar Sharma was appointed as Lekhpal on 21-9-70 and thereafter worked as tax inspector (projection), on the basis of the order of the Commissioner who had from time to time sanctioned to creation of post of tax inspector (projection), temporarily. This deponent asserted that respondents Jagdish Prasad and Hari Shankar Sharma were appointed in the revenue cadre but on superior post than those occupied by the petitioners and as such the seniority list did not show his name. These two persons belonged to revenue cadre and Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition covered seniority only of moharrir and bill collectors. At the time of preparation of this list the respon dents No. 3 and 4 were working on posts higher in scale and rank to that of moharrir and bill collector and accordingly their names did not appear in the list. The respondent No. 2, according to his date of appointment was senior to the petitioners. The deponent denied the averments that respondents No. 3 and 4 belonged to mini sterial cadre. It was stated further that on representation of Hari Shankar Sharma the State Government by Government order dated 23-7- 86 accorded sanction and directed that in the same scale of pay the post of lekhpal clerk will now be known as property inspector. The assertion that only Intermediate passed employees could be promoted was not accepted. The concerned Government order provided the minimum qualification of appointment of octroi tax and other revenue inspectors and this qualification was passing the High School examination. There was, however, a direc tion that Intermediate passed candidates should be preferred. According to the Board records Hari Shankar Sharma filed a claim petition against the order of the Commis sioner Meerut, on 20-9-78 who had set aside the appointment of the petitioners to the post of tax inspectors (projection ). The U. P. Public Services Tribunal vide its order dated 21-6-86 had set aside the order of the Com missioner and Tribunal held that the Com missioner had no jurisdiction to entertain the representation and to interfere with the appointment of respondent No. 4 to the post of Tax Inspector Projection. From the averments and the arguments of the parties it appears that the petitioners have firstly challenged the cadre of respondents No. 3 and 4 stating that they belonged to the mini sterial cadre. From the averments and the arguments of the parties it appears that the petitioners have firstly challenged the cadre of respondents No. 3 and 4 stating that they belonged to the mini sterial cadre. They had further stated even for respondent No. 2, he was junior to petitioner No. 1 as per the seniority list annexed to the writ petition. They had fur ther claimed that the petitioners Ant Ram and Bhagirath were entitled to promotion against reserved quota and vacancies were available in the City Board in the posts of Tax Inspector. 8. So far the cadre is concerned reliance was placed on a direction of the Commissioner, Meerut who had opined that the respondent Hari Shankar Sharma did not belong to the revenue cadre. This direction was, however, set aside by the Public Services Tribunal. Thus it may not be inferred merely from the directions of the Commissioner that Hari Shankar Sharma did not belong to the revenue cadre. The seniority list has been pressed with all force. It is true that this seniority list did not con tain the names of the respondents No. 3 and 4. They had taken a plea that the seniority list was one for persons of lower cadre than the post occupied by respondents No. 3 and 4 and as such their names had not appeared in the list. A further objection was taken that the seniority list was not published under any authority. Nothing has been placed before this Court to show how and under what authority the seniority list was prepared. It \vas argued that this seniority list was accepted in an earlier writ petition. 9. The copy of the order of the High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8261 of 1971 (Jagdish Dutta and another v. State of U. P and others) has been placed before me during arguments. It appears that the respondents or even the petitioners were not parties to the said writ petition. It was only decided in this case that the petitioners therein had a right to be promoted to the post of tax inspector in preference to the employees of the ministerial cadre. It was further observed that if any respondent was found to have been promoted from the min isterial service he should be reverted. It was only decided in this case that the petitioners therein had a right to be promoted to the post of tax inspector in preference to the employees of the ministerial cadre. It was further observed that if any respondent was found to have been promoted from the min isterial service he should be reverted. The Court, however did not decide as to which of the respondents did really belong to the ministerial cadre. It was left for a decision by the Board. The writ petition referred to in the averments of the petitioners was Writ Petition No. 2137 of 1984. A copy of the order in this writ petition was filed before me. The High Court simply refused to inter fere with the seniority list. It is not clear on what consideration the seniority list, relied upon the petitioners here, was confirmed by the High Court. 10. Reference was made to a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Special Ap peal No. 11 of 1976 arising from the aforementioned Writ Petition No. 8261 of 1972. The appeal was preferred by the respondents in that writ petition. The ap peal was dismissed. The Division Bench hearing the special appeal found that the City Board, Ghaziabad, had two distinct divisions of service, one consisting of the revenue service and the other ministerial service. A question was raised whether the Government Order dated 10-4-50 regarding promotion in different Departments of the Municipal Board. The appeal Bench con firmed the order of the Single Judge that the Government Order issued by the Govern ment was adopted and confirmed by the Municipal Board and as a result of this resolution the Government Order became a service condition of the employees under the Board. 11. The Government Order spoken of in the writ petition and this order is in an-nexure No. 2 to the writ petition. It is dated 10- 4-50. This Government Order was adopted by the Municipal Board and as per the High Courts decision it became a condi tion of service for the City Board Employees. This Government Order indi cates that the minimum educational qualifications for octroi and other revenue Inspectors was High School or equivalent examination but Intermediate passed can didate should be preferred. This Government Order was adopted by the Municipal Board and as per the High Courts decision it became a condi tion of service for the City Board Employees. This Government Order indi cates that the minimum educational qualifications for octroi and other revenue Inspectors was High School or equivalent examination but Intermediate passed can didate should be preferred. This Govern ment Order further clearly indicated three classes of service, namely, revenue, mini sterial and administrative, octroi, tax and revenue inspectors, the tax collectors, octroi moharrirs, toll and terminal tax, moharrirs, Amins etc. were placed in the revenue ser vice. Head Clerks, Seasonal Clerks, Cashiers, Stenographers, other clerks, Departmental Accountants, Accounts Clerks, Store- keepers, Lighting Inspectors were placed under Ministerial Services. The Government order further directed that in the case of posts mentioned in the an-ncxures, promotion from the lower to the higher post is to be made in the same class of service. Thus it is clear that for a senior revenue post a person holding a junior post should be considered for promotion. 12. Even considering this position, the petitioners were bound to indicate that the respondents No. 3 and 4 did not belong to the revenue service. This, in my view, could not be brought on record. Undisputedly, reliance was placed on a decision of the Commissioner which was set aside by the Public Services Tribunal. I have already dis cussed the question of the validity of the seniority list. No doubt the High Court did not like to interfere with it but the objec tions now raised about competence of the officer published in the seniority list was not discussed by the High Court and as such it may not be advisable to rely upon this seniority list to exclude respondent No. 3 and 4 from the revenue cadre. So far the respondent No. 2 is concerned the papers of his appointment indicate that he was ap pointed even prior to the appointment of petitioner No. 1 but the seniority list did not give correct description of the date of ap pointment of respondent No. 2. This is another reason why the seniority list may not be acted upon. 13. This is another reason why the seniority list may not be acted upon. 13. It has been contended that several posts are lying vacant in the category of tax inspector and the petitioners are entitled to promotion to those posts and the petitioners Ant Ram and Bhagirath have a special claim to go against reserved quotas. There is, however, no indication as to what would be the number of the vacancies against such quotas. 14. The writ petitions stands dismissed upon the discussions made above with the only observation that in case vacancies are still available and in case there are reserva tions for scheduled caste and scheduled tribes, the cases of the present petitioners be considered in the light of the assertions made in the writ petition. Petition dismissed. .