JUDGMENT Kamlesh Sharma, J. - These two writ petitions (CWPs) No. 1712 of 1993 and 2053 of 1995) are being disposed of by a common judgment as common questions of law and facts are involved in both the petitions. 2. The brief facts as stated in CWP No. 1712 of 1993 are that the petitioner Mohan Dass joined as class-1V employee in the year 1977. He was promoted as Ahlmad in the year 1980 and posted in the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Solan falling in the then Civil and Sessions Division, Solan and Sirmaur Districts. On the Bifurcation of the said Divisions into Civil and Sessions Divisions, Sirmaur and Solan w.e.f. 5.11.1990, the High Court as per letter dated 5.11.1990 (Annexure p-1) written by its Registrar to the District and Sessions Judges, Solan and Nahan, constituted a committee consisting of District and Sessions Judge, Solan, District and Sessions Judge, Nahan and Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Nahan to consider and finalise the appointments/promotions to the newly created posts by the State Government vide its letter dated 5.10.1990 (except the posts of Superintendents) and all those posts in Sirmaur and Solan Division which were lying vacant or which were filled up on adhoc/stop gap basis out of the joint cadre of Solan and Nahan Divisions. 3. It was further directed that after filling up all the vacancies, options would be called from the staff members of both the divisions qua the division they opt to be posted/transferred and the committee would consider the options on the principle of "first preference to the senior most" and would endeavour to accommodate the maximum employees for the division of their choice. In the event of any dispute or difference of opinion amongst the members of the committee and the appeals/representations against the order passed on the basis of decision taken by the above mentioned committee, the matter would be referred to the Registry of the High Court. The District and Sessions Judge, Solan was requested to take further necessary action immediately and intimate the progress made in the matter periodically. 4. The Bifurcation Committee (hereinafter called "the committee"), without making promotions to the vacant posts as on cut off date, sought for the options from the employees for the division of their choice. 5. The District and Sessions Judge, Solan was requested to take further necessary action immediately and intimate the progress made in the matter periodically. 4. The Bifurcation Committee (hereinafter called "the committee"), without making promotions to the vacant posts as on cut off date, sought for the options from the employees for the division of their choice. 5. Feeling aggrieved against the said action of the committee, the petitioner alongwith one Shri Sohan Lai filed writ petition No. 374 of 1991 titled Shohan Lal Vs. District and Sessions Judge, Solan,, which was disposed of by order dated 9.12.1991 (Annexure P-2) with a direction that the representations of the petitioners pending before the High Court on administrative side would be decided within a period of three months. Accordingly, Honble the Chief Justice was pleased to consider the matter and quashed the proceedings of the committee ab initio. The committee was directed to take proceedings afresh in accordance with the instructions of the High Court. The decision was conveyed by the Registrar of the High Court vide letter dated 4/6-6-1992(Annexure p-3). Accordingly, the committee met on 22.6.1993 at Solan and finalized the promotions and allocation of the staff. The proceedings of the said committee are on record as Annexure P-4. 6. From these proceedings it is clear that the committee approved the criteria for promotion to the Assistants and Superintendents Grade-11 cadre as adopted by the District and Sessions Judge, Nahan for the reasons that it was found in accordance with the High Court Rules and orders, Volume-1, chapter-XV111 and instructions issued vide letter dated 14.12.1992. However, the Committee decided to give the date of promotion to the Assistants and Superintendents Grade-11 from the dates when the respective vacancies fell due. Accordingly, the committee gave the following dates of promotions to the Superintendents Grade-11/Assistants who were promoted vide orders dated 6..3.1993 and 19.5.1993: S.No. Name of the official Date of promotion 1. Ram Swarup Sharma, Supdt. Grade-11 9.1.1990 2. Sewak Ram Sharma, -do- -do- 3. Ram Gopal Thakur -do- -do- 4. Rajinder Nath Rana -do- -do- 1. Matha Ram Rolta, Sr. Assistant 20.1.1999 2. Prithvi Singh -do- -do- 3. Rajesh Kumar -do- -do- 4. Rajinder Dutt -do- -do- 5. Karam Chand -do- -do- 6. Smt. Savita Sharma -do- -do- 7. Mohan Dutt Sharma -do- -do- 7. Grade-11 9.1.1990 2. Sewak Ram Sharma, -do- -do- 3. Ram Gopal Thakur -do- -do- 4. Rajinder Nath Rana -do- -do- 1. Matha Ram Rolta, Sr. Assistant 20.1.1999 2. Prithvi Singh -do- -do- 3. Rajesh Kumar -do- -do- 4. Rajinder Dutt -do- -do- 5. Karam Chand -do- -do- 6. Smt. Savita Sharma -do- -do- 7. Mohan Dutt Sharma -do- -do- 7. The committee did not approve the promotion of Shri Durga Dutt Sharma as Superintendent Grade-11 on adhoc basis because the vacancy against which he was promoted fell due after the cut off date I.e. 5.10.1990 on the promotion of Shri Ram Swarup Sharma as Superintendent Grade-1 on 18.12.1990. The District and Sessions Judge, Nahan was asked to issue revised orders of promotions of Superintendents Grade-11 and Assistants specifying the dates of their promotion as per the decision of the committee. After filling up the vacant posts by promotions, the Committee took upon the matter regarding consideration of options by different officials belonging to different categories and took the decision to bifurcate the staff of erstwhile Solan and Sirmaur Civil and Sessions Division So far the cadre of Senior Assistants is concerned, bifurcation of its staff is as under: Senior Assistants Allocated to Sirmaur Division 1. Shri Daulat Ram, 2. Mrs. Sushma Sharma, 3. Shri Pritam Singh, 4. Shri Jyoti Ram, 5. Shri R.S. Kalsi, 6. Shri Prithvi Singh, 7. Shri Rajesh Kumar, 8. Shri Mohan Dutt Sharma, 9. Shri Rajinder Kumar Shandil, 10. Shri Sukh Dev Singh, 11. Miss. Prerna Bhardwaj, 12. Shri Shamsher Singh. Allocated to Solan Division 1. Shri Durga Dutt Sharma (It is understood that this official will be accommodated against one of the up-graded posts Supdt. Gr. 11 against the. vacancy caused by adhoc appointment of Shri Ram Swaroop Sharma, as Supdt. Gr. 1 to District and session Judge, Solan. In the event of Ram Swaroop Sharma’s reversion, he would be accommodated against the post of Assistant vacated by Shri Matha Ram, who has been given appointment as Asstt. in the Honble High Court of HP) 2. Shri Maya Dutt Attri 3. Shri Laiq Ram Sharma, 4. Shri Ved Parkash Kaushik 5. Shri Sada Nand Sharma, 6. Shri Jagdish Chand Chandel, 7. Shri Matha Ram Rolta, 8. Shri Rajionder Dutt Sharma, 9. Shri Karam Chand, 10. Savita Sharma." 8. in the Honble High Court of HP) 2. Shri Maya Dutt Attri 3. Shri Laiq Ram Sharma, 4. Shri Ved Parkash Kaushik 5. Shri Sada Nand Sharma, 6. Shri Jagdish Chand Chandel, 7. Shri Matha Ram Rolta, 8. Shri Rajionder Dutt Sharma, 9. Shri Karam Chand, 10. Savita Sharma." 8. The grievance of the petitioner is that the District and Sessions judge Sirmaur Division at Nahan, respondent No. 1, has allocated 10 Sr. Assistants (including one Stenographer) to the Solan. Division against 9 clear vacancies including one post of stenographer as on the cut off date, thus, one Sr. Assistant was surplus who would affect the rights and interest of the senior most persons in the lower category of clerks of further promotion against the vacancies arising after the cut off date. The mode of adjustment of senior most senior Assistant Shri Durga Dutt Sharma, promoted to the post of Superintendent Grade-11, that in case of reversion of Shri Ram Swarup Sharma as Superintendent, Grade-11, Shri Durga Dutt would be accommodated against the post of Assistant vacated by Shri Matha Ram, who stood appointed as Assistant in the High Court in December, 1992 was against the instructions of the High court and the decision of the committee and also against the interest of senior most persons in the lower category. It is also averred that on the cut off date, one post of Sr. Assistant was kept vacant in Sirmaur Division which was contrary to the instructions of the High Court and the decision of the committee. 9. Further case of the petitioner is that after the cut off date, i.e., 5.10.1990, the fresh posts sanctioned or the vacancies occurring were to be filled up from amongst the eligible persons in the concerned division. In December, 1992, a new post of Record Keeper in the pay scale of Assistant for Solan Division was sanctioned and consequently, the senior most clerk, namely, Sohan Lai, was promoted to the said post on adhoc basis. Again, in December 1992, one Sr. Assistant from Solan Division, namely, Matha Ram was appointed as Sr. In December, 1992, a new post of Record Keeper in the pay scale of Assistant for Solan Division was sanctioned and consequently, the senior most clerk, namely, Sohan Lai, was promoted to the said post on adhoc basis. Again, in December 1992, one Sr. Assistant from Solan Division, namely, Matha Ram was appointed as Sr. Assistant by direct selection in the High Court and consequent vacancy was to be filed up from amongst the eligible persons in the feeder category of Solan Division and the petitioner being the senior most in the said category was entitled to be promoted, but instead the adjustment of Shri Durga Dutt Sharma was made against the said vacancy. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner represented on 12.7.1993 (Annexure p-6), but with no result. However, he was promoted as Assistant on adhoc basis vide office order dated 23.7.1993 (Annexure P-7) and posted as Civil Nazir in the Court of District and sessions Judge, Solan. 10. In nutshell the case of the petitioner is that the arrangement made by the District and Sessions Judge, Solan Division, respondent No. 2, as suggested in order dated 23.6.1993 (Annexure p-5) could not affect his vested .right to claim the promotion against the vacancy to the post of Assistant arising in Solan Division after the cut off date. As per the petitioner, the committee was competent only to allocate the person against the clear vacancy existing on the cut off date and not against the vacancies occurring after the said cut off date and anticipated in near future. It is further stated that respondent No. 4 Smt. Savita Sharma is added as party respondent for the reason that as on the cut off date i.e., 5.10.1990 she was junior most Senior Assistant in Solan Division, who would be affected if the allocation was restricted to the clear vacancies. 11. Respondents No. 1, 2 and 4 have filed separate reply-affidavits. Respondent No. 1 in his reply has taken preliminary objections that the petitioner has no locus-standi to challenge the allocation of one Assistant in excess of the sanctioned strength as on the cut off date, because it has caused no prejudice to him. The submissions made in paragraphs 1 to 7 in the writ petition have been admitted. Respondent No. 1 in his reply has taken preliminary objections that the petitioner has no locus-standi to challenge the allocation of one Assistant in excess of the sanctioned strength as on the cut off date, because it has caused no prejudice to him. The submissions made in paragraphs 1 to 7 in the writ petition have been admitted. The circumstances which necessitated the allocation of one official in excess of the sanctioned strength as on the cut off date, i.e., 5.10.1990 have been explained. It is stated that one of the promoted Superintendents Grade-11, namely, Ram Swarup Sharma, stood already appointed as Superintendent to the District and Sessions Judge, Solan on adhoc basis. Therefore, the next senior most official in the cadre of Sr. Assistants, namely, Shri Durga Dutt Sharma, was promoted as Superintendent Grade-11 on adhoc basis and by taking into account the resultant vacancy of Sr. Assistant, 11 persons from amongst clerks were promoted vide order dated 6.3.1993 (Annexure R-1) but it was subject to ratification of the committee as directed by the High court vide its letter dated 9.6.1993 (Annexure R-2) which was done by the committee in its meeting held on 22.6.1993. 12. Further, though the committee did not ratify the adhoc promotion of Shri Durga Dutt with the result the number of vacancies available in the cadre of Assistants came down to 10, yet inadvertently it approved the promotions of 11 officials from the cadre of clerks to the cadre of Sr Assistants. The District and Sessions Judge, Sirmaur Division, respondent No. 1, noticed the said discrepancy and in order to overcome it, recorded a note in the formal order of bifurcation. It is further explained that the petitioner was not at all prejudiced due to the action of replying respondent for the reasons that: "In case an Assistant in excess of the number of the posts in the Solan Division, as on the cut off date, were not allocated to Solan Division, one assistant promoted from among the clerks would have to be reverted and that assistant would have been Shri Shamsher Singh, being the junior most among the promotees. It may be submitted here that Shri Shamsher Singh promoted from the cadre of clerks had opted for being allocated to solan Sessions Division, but his option was rejected because an assistant senior to him working in Sirmaur Sessions Division opted for Solan Division and in view of the principle adopted by the bifurcation committee that the senior would be given precedence in the matter of acceptance of option, said assistant was allocated to Solan Sessions Division and Shri Shamsher Singh was allocated to Nahan, inspite of his option for Solan Division. Now in case Shri Shamsher Singh were reverted, he being the senior most clerk, would have been allocated to Solan Division in the cadre of clerks, because of his having opted for that Division. Admittedly, Shri Shamsher Singh was senior to the writ petitioner in the cadre of clerks and in the event of his allocation to the Solan Division as a clerk, he would have been senior to the writ petitioner and because of his seniority, he would have got promotion before the writ petitioner in the cadre of assistants. Thus, the allocation of an official in the cadre of senior assistants in excess of the number of posts in Solan Division, has not caused any prejudice to anybody, leave alone the writ petitioner." 13 It was denied that one post of Sr. Assistant was kept vacant in Sirmaur Division. Out of 13 posts of Assistants including two Senior Scale Stenographers, 12 persons (11 assistants and one stenographer) were allocated to Sirmaur Sessions Division and one post of Stenographer was lying vacant. 14. The submissions in respect of vacancies arising after the cut off date in Solan Division and appointments made against the said vacancies are denied for want of knowledge. However, it is submitted that in view of the facts and circumstances stated in the reply-affidavit, the petitioner could not have been promoted against the vacancy occurring after February, 1993 because had one assistant in excess of number of posts not been allocated to Solan Division, Shri Shamsher Singh, Junior most assistant would have been reverted and allocated to Solan Division and he being senior to the petitioner would have been promoted against the vacancy to which the petitioner has laid claim. 15. 15. The District and Sessions Judge, Solan, respondent No.2 in his reply-affidavit has admitted the averments made in paragraphs 1 to 7 of the writ petition. It is stated in para 7 that there were 8 posts in Solan Division and only 8 Assistants could have been allocated against these posts, but inadvertently, names of 9 Assistants were mentioned in the proceedings and when the said discrepancy was discovered later on, the District and Sessions Judge, Nahan, respondent No1, was requested on the very next date i.e., 23.6.1993, to rectify this discrepancy by deleting the name of one Assistant from the list of the Assistants allocated to Solan Sessions Division, but he did not agree and issued the list of persons vide office order dated 23.6.1993 (Annexure P-5). 16. The averments made in paragraphs 8 to 12 of the writ petition are also admitted. It is submitted that as per promotion order dated 19.4.1993, respondent No. 4 became the junior most Assistant in Solan Sessions Division, but she was senior to another Sr. Assistant, namely, Rajinder Dutt Sharma, as per the seniority list of clerks. 17. Respondent No. 4 in her reply-affidavit has stated that she was appointed as clerk w.e.f. 27.5.1978 in the office of the then District and Sessions Judge, Sirmaur and Solan Division and since then she has been serving at Solan in different capacities. After the creation of Solan Sessions Division, she was allocated to this Division as per her option after promoting her to the post of Assistant vide office order dated 6.3.1993(Annexure R-4/A) wherein Rajinder Dutt Sharma was shown at Sr. No. 1 and she at Sr. No. 8. Thereafter by office order dated 19.4.1993/19.5.1993 which was issued in pursuance of the acceptance of representation of Shri Mathe Ram, the office order dated 6.3.1993 was modified and Rajinder Dutt Sharma was shown at Sr. No. 1 and respondent No. 4 at Sr. No.6. 18. Further case of respondent No. 4 is that Shri Rajinder Dutt Sharma was appointed as clerk w.e.f. 24.2.1981 whereas she was appointed w.e.f. 27.5.1978, therefore, said Shri Rajinder Dutt Sharma was junior to her which fact is evident from the seniority list as stood on 30.4.1992, Annexure R-4/E, wherein she is shown at Sr. No. 12 and Shri Rajinder Dutt Sharma at Sr. No. 19. No. 12 and Shri Rajinder Dutt Sharma at Sr. No. 19. ignoring her seniority visa-vis Shri Rajinder Dutt Sharma in the cadre of Clerk she was superseded and placed junior to him in the cadre of Assistant. 19. According to respondent No. 4, paragraphs 3 to 6 of the writ petition require no reply by her. However, she has admitted the case of the petitioner that one post of Assistant was allocated in excess to Solan Division for the reason given in the note in office order dated 23.6.1993, and on account of this illegality, she being junior most in the seniority list of Sr. Assistants, might have to got to Sirmaur Division or be reverted. She has concluded in her reply to paragraph 11 that being aggrieved she has preferred representations, Annexures, R-4F and R-4G to Honble the Chief Justice. 20. In a separate writ petition filed by respondent No. 4 Smt. Savita Sharma, she has reiterated her claims of seniority vis-a vis Shri Rajinder Dutt, who has been imp leaded as respondent No. 4 in her writ petition. 21. She has reiterated her grievance that being junior in the cadre of clerks, Rajinder Dutt, Respondent No. 4 could not be considered for promotion in preference to her and placed senior in the cadre of Sr. Assistants. She has placed on record her representations as Annexure p6 and p7 in which she had claimed seniority above Shri Rajinder Dutt, respondent No. 4 in the cadre of Senior Assistants and all other consequential reliefs, such as, promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade-11 when Shri Rajinder Dutt, Respondent No. 4 was promoted against the said post. So far allotment of one post of Assistant in excess to Solan Division is concerned, her case is similar to that of Mohan Dass in CWP No. 1712 of 1993. 22. In their reply to the writ petition respondents No. 1 to 3 have taken preliminary objections, inter alias, that the petitioner has no locus-standi to challenge the allocation of 9 assistants to Solan Sessions Division as on the cut. off date, because it has not caused any prejudice to her and her apprehension that she being junior most amongst the Sr. Assistants would be reverted, is ill founded as 8 clerks junior to her have been promoted as Sr. Assistants. On merits, it is admitted that 9 Sr. off date, because it has not caused any prejudice to her and her apprehension that she being junior most amongst the Sr. Assistants would be reverted, is ill founded as 8 clerks junior to her have been promoted as Sr. Assistants. On merits, it is admitted that 9 Sr. Assistants were allocated to Solan Sessions Division, but denied that it was in excess by one post as clarified in the proceedings of the Bifurcation Committee dated 22.6.1993 in pursuance of which order dated 23.6.1993 was issued. 23. It is further stated that representation of the petitioner stood rejected by the High Court vide letter dated 12.10.1993, Annexure R-3 to the reply-affidavit. It is explained that promotions to the rank of Sr. Assistant were made in accordance with the high Court Rules and Orders, Volume-1, chapter 18-A, Rule V1(1) and the instructions issued by the High Court vide circular dated 11.4.1986 and 24.12.1992. According to the service record available at that time, the petitioner was simply a matriculate whereas Shri Rajinder Dutt, respondent no. 4 was a graduate and accordingly, the promotions were made. 24. The petitioner filed rejoinder to the reply of respondents 1 to 3 and reiterated her allegations made in the writ petition and denied contrary stated in the reply-affidavit. 25. Shri Rajinder Dutt, respondent No. 4 did not file reply to the writ petition, though submissions on his behalf have been made by his learned counsel during the course of hearing. 26. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 27. Since the petitioner in CWP No. 2053 of 1995 has assailed the promotion order to the post of assistant grade before bifurcation of Sirmaur and Solan Sessions Divisions for which the cut off date was fixed as 5.10.1990 which will have effect on the allocation of staff to both the Divisions, we will first examine whether the promotions to the post of assistant grade in the then Sirmaur and Solan Sessions Division were made in accordance with law or not. Admittedly, there were no rules under Article 309 of the constitution of India at the time when these promotions were made. The only criteria under which the promotions could be made is Rule V1 (1), Chapter 18-A, Vol.-1 of the High Court Rules and Orders. It is: "V1. Promotion. Admittedly, there were no rules under Article 309 of the constitution of India at the time when these promotions were made. The only criteria under which the promotions could be made is Rule V1 (1), Chapter 18-A, Vol.-1 of the High Court Rules and Orders. It is: "V1. Promotion. -(1) Appointments to the higher grades of the ministerial establishment should ordinarily be made by seniority from lower grades, provided that the official who would thus receive promotion possesses the prescribed educational qualifications and is otherwise fit to perform the duties to which he will be promoted, for which purpose tests may be imposed. This rule does not apply to such posts as that of stenographer for which special qualifications are needed; but preference should be given to officers with such qualifications who are already working in the lower grades: Provided that permanent vacancies in the (75-5-125) grade shall be filed by the District and Sessions Judges in the following rotation; (i) By selection on merit out of graduates who have at least two years experience in the work of the office, if there is no suitable graduate who fulfils this condition an outsider graduate may be appointed but he must be one who normally resides within the jurisdiction of the District and Sessions Judge. (ii) & (iii) By normal promotion in the office, i.e., the appointment of the next senior man whether graduate or non-graduate subject to his fitness: Provided further that rotation may be modified in very exceptional cases when the direct appointment of a graduate would mean the ousting of a man, who had been officiaing quasi-permanently in the post concerned for an. appreciable period will depend on the circumstances of each case. After such a modification, the rotation should be restored as soon as possible." 28. Relying upon sub-rule (1), the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that promotions to the post of the cadre of assistants were to be made by seniority in the lower cadre of clerks. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents have argued that the promotions to the post of the cadre of assistants were to be made under proviso to sub-rule (1) as the grade of these posts was initially 75-5-125. 29. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents have argued that the promotions to the post of the cadre of assistants were to be made under proviso to sub-rule (1) as the grade of these posts was initially 75-5-125. 29. It is not in dispute that as per this proviso the appointments were to be made by rotation, i.e., the first post by selection on merits out of the graduates having two years experience hi the work of the office and the second and third posts by normal promotions by seniority whether graduate or no-graduate subject to fitness. In order to decide that the posts of the cadre of assistants fall under proviso to sub-rule (1), there is no material on record that the initial grade of the post of assistants was 75-5-125. However, in a Division Bench judgement dated 22.11.1994 of this Court in Surinder kumar and others Vs. The Honble High Court and others, passed in CWP No. 349/90, this rule has been interpreted. In the said writ petition promotions to the upgraded posts of civil Nazirs and Readers which were given the designation of Assistants, were assailed on the ground that these were made on the basis of seniority subject to fitness whereas under proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule V1, chapter 18A, Vol.1 of the High Court Rules and orders, the promotions were required to be made by adopting rotation system. Interpreting the said proviso, the learned judges have held: "Proviso, however, deals with the permanent vacancies in the first grade, i.e., Rs. 75-5-125/- and prescribes a system of rotation by selection on merit. It is common ground that Grade-1 to which the proviso applies is referable to the schedule attached to the Rules which mentions posts of English Clerks, Record keepers and Translators only. It does not mention either Assistants or Nazirs. Under the circumstances, strict interpretation of the aforesaid provision would not justify the claim of the petitioners. Thee submission of the petitioners, however, is that the posts mentioned in schedule-1 are only illustrative and not exhaustive and hence the grade would be important and all posts in the equivalent grade should be filled, at similarly. The practice does not appear to be justifying the aforesaid submission..................". Thee submission of the petitioners, however, is that the posts mentioned in schedule-1 are only illustrative and not exhaustive and hence the grade would be important and all posts in the equivalent grade should be filled, at similarly. The practice does not appear to be justifying the aforesaid submission..................". It was concluded that: "In view of the aforesaid, the promotions to the posts under consideration will have to be made under the first part of the Rule i.e. on the basis of seniority-cum-merit...." 30. The case in hand is just covers to the case before the earlier Division Bench wherein the then District and Sessions Judge, Shimla, Kinnaur and Bilaspur Districts, by giving altogether different interpretation to the rule, had made promotions to the post of assistants by seniority as provided under sub-rule (1) and not by promotion as provided under proviso thereof. Following the ratio of the said judgement we are unable to uphold the promotion order dated 6.3.1993 which was modified by order dated 19th April/May, 1993. 31. Learned counsel for the respondents have tried to persuade us to refer the matter to a larger Bench on the ground that the interpretation given by the earlier Division Bench is erroneous, but we do not find any substance in this submission. Following the criteria of seniority subject to fitness, petitioner Savita Sharm being at Sr. No. 10 was required to be promoted before Rajinder Dutt, who was at sr. No. 19 in the seniority list. In fact, as per the criteria of seniority-cum- fitness, the promotions of graduates clerks over and above their non, graduate seniors, were bad. But since only petitioner Savita Sharma j has approached this court, we will limit the quashing of office order dated 19th April/may, 1993 qua her vis-a-vis respondent No. 4 Shri Rajinder Dutt and direct that they will switch their respective places in the said office order. Petitioner Savita Sharma will be placed at Sr. No. 4 whereas Shri Rajinder Dutt will be placed at Sr.No.6. As a result of her placement at Sr. No.4 in the office order dated 19th April/may, 1993, she will be given all consequential benefits. 32. Petitioner Savita Sharma will be placed at Sr. No. 4 whereas Shri Rajinder Dutt will be placed at Sr.No.6. As a result of her placement at Sr. No.4 in the office order dated 19th April/may, 1993, she will be given all consequential benefits. 32. Coming to the point raised by another petitioner Mohan Dass in CW P No. 1712 of 1993, we are of the view that he has no grievance against Savita Sharma, respondent No. 4 in his petition as she does not remain the junior most amongst Sr. Assistants allocated to Solan Division. She goes in place of Rajinder Dutt Sharma, who has not been made party in this writ petition. Otherwise also, we find some substance in the stand taken by respondents 1 and 2 that as a result of allocation of one Assistant in excess to Solan Sessions Division, no if cause of action has arisen to him as the junior most Assistant Shamsher Singh would have been reverted to the cadre of clerk who had opted for being allocated to Solan Sessions Division, but his option was rejected because an Assistant senior to him working in Sirmaur Sessions Division had opted for Solan Division and in that case Shamsher Singh should have been allocated as senior most clerk to Solan Sessions Division and he would have got promotion before the petitioner in the cadre of Assistants. We also find that petitioner Mohan Dass is at Sr.No.4 amongst the clerks allocated to Solan Division and his grievance is too far fetched. Assuming but not admitting that his prospects of future promotions are adversely affected in any manner he cannot agitate the same by filling the writ petition as chances of promotions are not conditions of service and any change in them is not justifiable. 33. Result of above discussion is that CWP no. 1712 of 1993 is dismissed whereas CWP No. 2053 of 1995 is allowed to the extent that petitioner Savita Sharma will be placed at Sr. No. 4 whereas Rajinder Dutt, respondent No. 4 will be placedat her place at Sre. No. 6 in the office order dated 19th April/May, 1993 and she will be given all the consequential benefits thereof. There is no order as to costs. -