Judgment N.P. Gupta, J.-By this petition, the petitioner seeks a declaration about his being entitled to be promoted on the post of Office Assistant, a direction to prepare fresh seniority list of U.D. Cs., in which the petitioners name be shown as senior to the Non-petitioner Nos. 3 to 12, or in place of Respondent No. 3 the petitioner be declared promoted as Office Assistant, being senior to Respondent No. 3. Other prayer made is, that the petitioner be directed to be promoted since the date when petitioner was promoted as L.D.C., or since 1971. .2. The facts of the case are very simple and clear. According to the petitioner he was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher since 011.1963 to 30.04.1965. Then, vide order dated 06.05.1965, he .was re-appointed as L.D.C. in the office of Deputy Director, Education. Then, in 1966 he was handed over additional charge of Librarian, then vide order dated 14/111.1970 the services were confirmed as L.D.C. w.e.f. 01.09.1968. It is contended, that the petitioner obtained the qualification of “Library Science Certificate”. However, he was not handed over the charge of Librarian on his being transferred from Kankroli to other Secondary School. In the seniority list the petitioners name finds place at S. No. 157, with seniority No. 155, while the name of Respondent No. 3 is shown at S. No. 162, with Seniority No. 160, and the other respondents are still junior. The comparative facts have been given in Schedule-A. It is then alleged that vide order dated 31.08.1971, promotions were made to the post of U.D.C., in which the petitioner was not considered, while persons junior to him, being at S. No. 142, 158, and 162 etc. were promoted, whereupon he submitted representations dated 18.06.1975, and 21.06.1975, being Annexure-2 and Annexure-3. According to the petitioner, he was promoted as U.D.C. alongwith about 65 L.D.Cs., vide order dated 11.01.1976 Annexure-4, and was confirmed vide order dated 11.01.1977. According to the petitioner, after considering several representations of the petitioner, and other persons, a revised list of confirmation of U.D.C. was issued, wherein the date of revised confirmation of Respondent Nos. 3 to 12 was given to be in the year 1977, i.e., after the date of promotion of the petitioner. This order dated 15.05.1990 has been produced as Annexure-5. 3 to 12 was given to be in the year 1977, i.e., after the date of promotion of the petitioner. This order dated 15.05.1990 has been produced as Annexure-5. However, thereafter came to be issued the order dated 28.03.1991 being Annexure-6, whereby the names of the private Respondent Nos. 3 to 12 were ordered to be omitted from Annexure-5. Then, it is alleged that by another order of the same date 28.03.1991, Annexure-7, ignoring the seniority of the petitioner, the private Respondents No. 3 to 12 were further promoted to the post of Office Assistant. According to the petitioner 14 posts of the Office Assistants are lying vacant, and several representations of the petitioner fell on deaf ears. With these factual averments, it is alleged, that according to Rule 15 of the Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957, herein after to be referred to as the rules, on completion of seven years of service as L.D.C., the petitioner became eligible for promotion as U.D.C., and vide order dated 09.04.1975, and 12.03.1976, issued by the Director of Education, even despite the availability of graduate L.D.C., the promotion should be made by seniority if person with seven years or more experience are available. According to the petitioner, despite the petitioner being senior to Respondent Nos. 3 to 12, they have been promoted in 1973, while even if the petitioner is taken to be initially appointed on 06.05.1965, he had completed seven years on 05.05.1972, but ignoring his seniority, his juniors have been promoted, and have been further promoted as Office Assistants, which is illegal, and is required to be quashed. Some pleadings have also been taken about the petitioners entitlement to the post of Librarian. However, during course of hearing nothing was submitted in that regard. .3. A reply has been filed on behalf of the State, wherein it has not been disputed that the petitioner was initially appointed on 011.1963 which came to an end on 30.04.1964. According to the respondents, the petitioner was freshly appointed as L.D.C. vide order dated 06.05.1965. Para-10 of the writ petition was admitted to the extent, the Non-petitioner No. 2 issued orders of promotion to the post of L.D.Cs. The contention about the juniors being promoted, and petitioner having not been considered was denied. According to the respondents, the petitioner was freshly appointed as L.D.C. vide order dated 06.05.1965. Para-10 of the writ petition was admitted to the extent, the Non-petitioner No. 2 issued orders of promotion to the post of L.D.Cs. The contention about the juniors being promoted, and petitioner having not been considered was denied. It was submitted, that promotions were made according to Rule 15, which was reproduced, and then it was specifically pleaded as under:- .“All the candidates who were junior to the petitioner and were promoted to the post of UDC were graduates and as per rule, though they may be juniors, were promoted on completion of 3 years of service as LDC as per rules. Had the petitioner been graduate, he would also have been given promotion. But as he was under graduate and also did not complete 7 years of service he could not be promoted with those graduates who were junior to him.” 4. It was pleaded that the petitioner was promoted as per his turn in the year 1976, and since then he did not make any representation, and lied low. Para-12 was admitted, and it was pleaded that since the petitioner became eligible, and vacancies occurred, the promotion orders were issued including that of the petitioner, which was happily accepted by him. Then, replying Para-15, it was submitted, that in pursuance of the order dated 012.1990. Annexure R-1 from the Director, the names of persons upto S. No. 251 in seniority list were to be regularised. Hence, persons who were wrongly promoted vide order dated 15.05.1990 were ordered to be omitted from this list, vide order dated 28.03.1991 (Anenxure-6), and that the persons, whose names were thus omitted, retain seniority, as it prevailed before issuance of this order, i.e. From 31.03.1973, and thereby they became senior to the petitioner, and consequently they were given promotion to the post of Office Assistant. 5. No reply has been filed by the private respondents, though some of them are represented. A rejoinder has also been filed, averments thereof are not much relevant for the present purpose. 6. Thus, from a combined reading of the writ petition, and reply, it is clear, that the material facts are practically not in dispute, viz. that the petitioner was appointed as L.D.C since 06.05.1965, the respondents Nos. A rejoinder has also been filed, averments thereof are not much relevant for the present purpose. 6. Thus, from a combined reading of the writ petition, and reply, it is clear, that the material facts are practically not in dispute, viz. that the petitioner was appointed as L.D.C since 06.05.1965, the respondents Nos. 3 to 12 were junior to the petitioner in the cadre of L.D.C., they had been promoted as U.D.C. since 31.03.1973, and vide order Annexure-5 they were given seniority in the cadre of U.D.C. from therespective dates, in the year 1977, i.e., after the date of promotion of the petitioner, who was promoted vide order Annexure-4 dated 11.01.1976. Then, vide Annexure-6 the seniority of the private respondents have been restored w.e.f. 31.03.1973, and taking them to be senior to the petitioner, they have been promoted as Office Assistant. 7. The stand taken to defend this action, is in Para-10 viz. that the persons who were promoted were graduates, and as per rule, though they may be juniors, were promoted on completion of three years of service as L.D.C., and since the petitioner was under graduate, and also did not complete seven years of service, he could not be promoted with those graduates. 8. In my view, this stand is wholly wrong. According to Rule 26-B of the rules, selection for promotion up to the posts of Upper Division Clerks and other equivalent posts shall be made solely on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. Then, Rule 26-C of the Rules provides the procedure for selection on the basis of seniority cum merit, according to which, the appointing authority is to prepare a correct and complete list containing names not exceeding five times the numbers of vacancies, out of the senior-most persons, who are eligible and qualified under these rules for promotion to the class of posts concerned. Then D.P.C. is to meet, and is to prepare a separate list containing the names of the persons who may be selected to fill officiating vacancies already existing or such as are likely to occur till the next meeting. Then, according to sub-Rule 4, the names of the candidates selected as suitable by the committee, for each category of posts separately, shall be arranged in the order of their seniority, Then, the list is to be sent to the concerned appointing authority together with the other records for the needful. Then, according to sub-Rule 4, the names of the candidates selected as suitable by the committee, for each category of posts separately, shall be arranged in the order of their seniority, Then, the list is to be sent to the concerned appointing authority together with the other records for the needful. In this background, Rule 15 of the rules lays down eligibility criteria, and provides, that no person shall be appointed substantively by promotion to a post of Upper Division Clerk, unless he has served as L.D.C. for at least 7 years (as prevailing at that time), except that Graduates with three years of service shall be eligible for appointment. 9. Thus, from a combined reading of Rule 26-B, 26-C alongwith Rule 15, it is clear, that the promotions are to be made on the basis of seniority cum merit, for which list of eligible candidates upto five times of the number of vacancies is to be prepared, and out of that, selection is to be made. In the present case, even according to the respondents, the promotions were made on 31.03.1973, and even if the petitioners services are taken to have commenced on 06.05.1965, still by that time, the petitioner had completed 7 years of service, way back on 05.05.1972. In that view of the matter, the fact of the private respondents being graduate, and petitioner not being graduate, lost its significance, as admittedly, in view of Annexure-1, the petitioner is definitely senior to private Respondent Nos. 3 to 12. Toput in other words, if the promotions were to be made at a point of time when the petitioner had not completed 7 years as L.D.C., then probably the persons junior to the petitioner, possessing graduation qualification, with three years of service could be considered for promotion, in view of Rule 15, but then, when at the time of undertaking promotional/selection exercise, the petitioner also had acquired eligibility of 7 years, he could not be excluded from consideration, on the ground of not being graduate. 10. 10. Even at the cost of repetition it may be observed, that under the scheme of Rule 15, 26-B, and 26-C it is no where contemplated, that the graduates are to be preferred above his seniors, or that, the non graduates are to be promoted only after graduates are exhausted, rather the seniority has its own play, of course, subject to the incumbent fulfilling eligibility criteria. Thus, the criteria adopted by the State respondents, as pleaded in Para 10 of the reply, is ex-facie unsustainable. 11. So far delay is concerned, since vide Annexure-5 the petitioner was shown senior to the private respondents till that time, i.e., 15.05.1990, the petitioner may not have felt advised to take cudgels, but then, when vide Annexure-6 dated 28.05.1991, that Annexure-5 was adversely modified, and thereby the private respondents were made to rank senior to the petitioner, the petitioner has immediately filed the present writ petition on 112.1991 itself , which cannot be said to be belated, on any parameters. Thus, this contention also does not hold good. 12. Obviously, the further promotions on the post of Office Assistant have been made, admittedly treating the private respondents to be senior to the petitioner, on account of their promotion since 1973, which was made by excluding the candidature of the petitioner, and, therefore, be for that post, the petitioner is entitled to legitimately lay his claim, above the private respondents. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to consider, rather promote the petitioner as U.D.C., with effect from the date the persons junior to the petitioner, including the private respondents have been promoted, computing the petitioners service, only for this purpose, since 06.05.1965, of course subject to the petitioners not possessing any disqualification for promotion. Likewise treating the petitioner to have been so promoted, if not otherwise found to be ineligible, the respondents are further directed to consider the case of the petitioner, for promotion to the post of Office Assistant, retrospectively with effect from date the persons junior to the petitioner, being private respondents, have been promoted, and in case the petitioner is found eligible for promotion, the petitioner shall also be paid all consequential benefits. This exercise be completed most expeditiously, and since the petitioner has already retired, within a period of three months, and the payment of the amounts, so becoming payable to the petitioner, be made to the petitioner, in any case within a period of six months from today. It is further directed, that in case payment is not made within six months, the amounts becoming payable to the petitioner shall carry interest @ 12% from the respective dates, from which the amount fell due, till the actual payment. The parties shall bear their own costs of this writ petition.