Judgment Ajay Rastogi, J.-Instant petition has been filed against Judgment dated 01.04.2005 (Annexure-6) passed by Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal (“Appellate Tribunal”) in Appeal No. 10/1990. 2. Petitioner was promoted as UDC on temporary basis vide order dated 02.01.1990 (Annexure-5) which was set aside by Tribunal whereby Respondent No. 2 was directed to consider candidature of Respondent No. 3 (appellant in Appeal No. 10/1990) for promotion to the post of UDC from the date petitioner was promoted. 3. Facts, in brief , are that petitioner was initially appointed as LDC in Judgeship of Jaipur District on 11.03.1974 and was confirmed with effect from 112.1982. He submitted application on 05.07.1986 for transfer of his service from the office of District Court to the office of Rajasthan State Co-operative-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur (“MACT ”) stating inter-alia that if his application for transfer is accepted he would not claim seniority and other benefits for the period prior to his joining. Taking note of the same, his services were transferred in the Officer of MACT and he was allowed to join service vide order 20.09.1986 (Annexuure-1). As is evident from order (Annexure-1), he was already substantive in the cadre of LDC before his services were allowed to transfer. No seniority list of LDC was published by MACT but looking to the fact that petitioner was confirmed and substantively in the cadre of LDC when he joined on transfer pursuant to order (Annexure-1) on 20.09.1986, he was promoted on temporary basis on UDC vide order dated 02.01.1990 (Annexure-5), which was challenged by Respondent No. 3 by filing appeal before the Tribunal. 4. As regards Respondent No. 3, he too initially joined service in the Office of Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur vide order dated 08.09.1981 (Annexure-2) against leave vacancy for 35 days occurred on account of Kumari Meena Tripathi LDC being proceeded on leave, but before expiry of aforesaid leave period, his service were transferred from Industrial Tribunal to MACT vide order dated 19.09.1981 (Annexure-3) on temporary basis till candidate regularly appointed is made available and with the stipulation that he would retain his lien in parent department (Industrial Tribunal) and as is evident from order dated 11.07.1988 (Annexure-4), his services were extended from time to time and upto 30.09.1988. .5. .5. Grievance raised by Respondent No. 3 before Tribunal was that he joined services in MACT on 19/09/81 whereas petitioner joined in September, 1986; as such he ranked senior to him and, in such circumstances, without publishing seniority list, he being senior was entitled for promotion to the post .of UDC but respondents have erroneously promoted petitioner as UDC vide order dated 02.01.1990 (Annexure-5). 6. It is pertinent to mention that appointment of petitioner vide order dated 20.09.1986 (Annexure-1) on transfer to MACT was neither challenged nor there was any pleading in appeal before appellate Tribunal. A copy of appeal has not been placed on record but Counsel has shown memo of appeal in course of arguments, where I do not find any pleading questioning transfer of petitioner to the MACT. .7. The Tribunal without there being any pleading and challenged to the order dated 20.09.1986 (Annexure-1) by which petitioner was transferred to the MACT, recorded a finding that order of his transfer was not in accordance with rules and as a consequence whereof , very promotion of petitioner vide order dated 02.01.1990 was set aside. Operative part of Judgment dated 112.1991 (Annexure-6) reads as under:- .“In the result, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 02.01.1990 is quashed. The Respondent No. 1 is directed to consider the candidature of appellant for his promotion to the post of Upper Division Clerk in the Co-operative Tribunal as per rules and if he is found eligible and suitable to promote him to the post of Upper Division Clerk with effect from the date Respondent No. 2 was so promoted with all consequential benefits.” Hence, this petition. 8. In Stay Petition No. 120/1992, this Court vide ad interim order dated 08.01.1992 allowed the petitioner to continue on the promoted post of UDC in case already not reverted. This order was confirmed on 31.01.1992 after hearing both the parties. 9. Counsel informed that in terms of stay order, petitioner is still working as UDC in the Office of MACT. 10. Counsel for petitioner contends that very finding recorded by appellate Tribunal as regards transfer of petitioner to the Office of MACT in terms of order dated 20.09.1986 (Annexure-1) is per se bad because neither there was any pleading nor challenged and the appellate Tribunal examined it at its own and recorded finding which is in clear violation of principles of natural justice. 11. 11. Counsel further contends that under the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal Act, 1976, limitation provided is sixty days; and Respondent No. 3 was not aggrieved by transfer of petitioner vide order dated 20.09.1986 as such he never raised any objection thereto and has also not challenged in his appeal and his grievance was only against order of promotion of petitioner dated 20.09.1986 (Annexure-1) as UDC; as such interference in the order of transfer vide Judgment (Annexure-6) is beyond scope of appeal and such finding has caused great prejudice to him which deserves to be set aside. 12. Respondents have not filed reply to writ petition. Only reply to stay petition has been filed by Respondent No. 3. However, in reply to the appeal before appellate Tribunal, the State supported its action and inter alia stated that petitioner was substantively holding post of LDC when he joined service in the Office of MACT on transfer while Respondent No. 3 became regular only after qualifying examination held by RPSC, on 25.08.1987 and thus rightly ranked junior to petitioner, albeit no seniority was published. State has still supported the petitioner while making contention that no error was committed by the authority while promoting the petitioner as UDC as he was substantive in the cadre of LDC and that apart, promotion was made only on temporary basis, therefore, no right of Respondent No. 3 can at all be said to be affected adversely. 10.13. State has still supported the petitioner while making contention that no error was committed by the authority while promoting the petitioner as UDC as he was substantive in the cadre of LDC and that apart, promotion was made only on temporary basis, therefore, no right of Respondent No. 3 can at all be said to be affected adversely. 10.13. Shri S.P. Sharma, Counsel for contesting Respondent No. 3 reiterated the contentions made in reply to the stay petition as well as in application moved under Article 226(3) of Constitution of India, wherein it has inter alia been averred that transfer of petitioner to MACT was contrary to rules and as regards his transfer from Industrial Tribunal to Co-operative Tribunal where his lien was kept, it has been averred that Rule 15 of R.S.R. 1951, deals with “lien” in respect of Government servant who is substantively appointed to any permanent post and if previously acquired on any other post; as such reference of lien being kept in parent department of Industrial Tribunal on his transfer vide order dated 19.09.1981 (Annexure-3) is of no legal significance and is contrary to rules and once services of Respondent No. 3 has been regularised in terms of Rule 25(7) of Rules, 1957, he becomes entitled for seniority from the date he joins service as per rule 27 (xxi) as inserted vide notification dated 01.05.1986 and since the petitioner came at his own request in the Co-operative Tribunal, he is only entitled to seniority from the date he joined the Office of MACT. 14. Counsel for Respondent No. 3 also contends that appellate Tribunal has examined entire material on record and after taking note thereof has rightly interfered in the order of promotion (Anenxure-5) which is duly supported by material on record and does not require any interference. 15. I have considered rival contentions of Counsel for the parties and with their assistance examined material on record. This fact remains undisputed that order dated 20.09.1986 (Annexure-1) by which petitioner was transferred to Co-operative Tribunal was neither challenged nor was there any pleading questioning validity of said order and before appellate Tribunal in appeal of Respondent No. 3, his claim was confined to questioning validity of order of promotion of petitioner dated 02.01.1990 (Annexure-5) as UDC, which was purely on temporary basis. This fact also remains undisputed that instant petitioner was substantively holding the post of LDC before he joined service on transfer to Co-operative Tribunal as is evident from bare reading of order dated 20.09.1986 (Annexure-1) while Respondent No. 3 was initially appointed against leave vacancy having arisen on account of Kumari Meena Tripathi being proceeded on leave for 35 days as evident from order dated 08.09.1981 (Annexure-2), and before expiry of leave period of 35 days, he got himself transferred to Co-operative Tribunal vide order dated 19.09.1981 (Annexure-3) specifically with a stipulation that his lien as LDC would continue in parent department and his services were extended from time to time and during intervening period after amendment in Rule 25 of Rules, 1957 which came into force vide notification dated 01.04.1986, and after qualifying test conducted by RPSC open 25.08.1987, Respondent No. 3 was made regular in the cadre of LDC under Scheme of Rules, 1957. Indisputably, no seniority list of LDCs either provisional or final was even published by Co-operative Tribunal. Both petitioner and Respondent No. 3 claimed themselves to be senior and both claim seniority under scheme of Rules, 1957. 16. However, appellate Tribunal after placing reliance upon decision of this Court in Jagdish Behari Goswami vs. State of Rajasthan, 1989 (1) RLR 928, recorded finding that transfer of petitioner, itself is bad, but in my considered opinion, in the absence of challenge to transfer of petitioner and so also no pleadings in this regard made in appeal of Respondent No. 3, appellate Tribunal, in fact, has acted beyond scope of appeal and such finding recorded (Supra), is not legally sustainable. 17. 17. At this stage, this fact cannot be ruled out that Respondent No. 3, himself who raised grievance against petitioner, joined service in Co-operative Tribunal by way of transfer while holding post against leave vacancy as is evident from his initial appointment order dated 08.09.1981 (Annexure-2) and vide his transfer order dated 19.09.1981 (Annexure-3), his lien was retained in parent department of Industrial Tribunal, itself , therefore, contention of Counsel for Respondent No. 3 in this regard, is of no significance and renders no help to him and on the other hand, in my opinion, Respondent No. 3, himself was sailing in the same boat because at one time, he himself came on transfer with same method and at later point of time he questioned transfer qua petitioner. Even once indisputably Respondent No. 3 qualified requisite examination on 25.08.1987 in order to get regularization of his services, much after transfer of petitioner vide order dated 20.09.1986 (Annexure-1) and being substantive in the cadre of LDC obviously would be placed below substantively appointed/confirmed LDCs of Co-operative Tribunal who joined service prior to his substantive appointment. In this view of matter, finding recorded by appellant Tribunal holding transfer of petitioner vide order dated 20.09.1986 to be in violation of rules, is totally perverse and is not legally sustainable and which I hereby set aside. 18. Consequently the writ petition is allowed. Judgment dated 112.1991 (Annexure-6) of appellate Tribunal is hereby quashed and set aside. However, Respondent No. 2 will be free to publish seniority list of LDCs working in its office and make regular promotions to the posts of UDCs under Scheme of Rules, 1957. No costs.