JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sabhajeet Yadav, J.—A short question which arises for consideration is that as to whether a senior person in the feeding cadre if promoted subsequent to his juniors on next higher post can regain his seniority as it was in feeding cadre on his such subsequent promotion? 2. The brief facts leading to the case is that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Junior Clerk in the Office of Laghu Krishak Vikas Abhikaran, Gorakhpur on 14/15.11.1980 on regular basis after due process of selection, and by efflux of time the persons appointed as Junior Clerk in Laghu Krishak Vikas Abhikaran were redesignated as Junior Accounts Clerk on its redesignation as Zila Gramya Vikas Abhikaran. Thereafter the petitioner was given promotion to the next higher post of Assistant Accountant vide order dated 23.11.1990. Next promotion from the post of Assistant Accountant is the post of Accountant. A tentative seniority list for the post of Assistant Accountant was published on 13.6.1996 inviting objection against the said seniority list. The petitioner moved his representation/objection against the said tentative seniority list on 24.7.1996. Thereafter a final seniority list was published by the respondent vide covering letter dated 1.9.1998 (Anneuxre—6 to the writ petition). Thereafter on the basis of aforesaid seniority list promotion order from the post of Assistantant Accountant to the post of Accountant was issued vide order dated 10.11.1999 (Annexure 7 of the writ petition) from the office of Commissioner, Gramya Vikas, U.P. Lucknow. The petitioner moved a representation to the Commissioner, Gramya Vikas, U.P. Lucknow on 12.11.1999 and ultimately filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 51833 of 1999 earlier to it. While deciding writ petition vide judgment and order dated 10.12.1999, this Court has directed the respondent to decide representation dated 12.11.1999 moved by the petitioner before respondent No. 2. In compliance of the aforesaid order passed by this Court, the Commissioner, Gramya Vikas, U.P. Lucknow respondent No. 2 vide impugned order dated 10.8.2000 (Annexure—10 to the writ petition) has rejected the aforesaid representation of the petitioner, hence this petition. 3. Heard Sri A.P. Tewari, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ravi Ranjan, learned Standing Counsel for respondents. 4. The submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner in nutshell is that the services of employees of Gramya Vikas Abhikaran is not regulated of any statutory rules rather it is regulated by G.O. issued from time to time. 3. Heard Sri A.P. Tewari, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ravi Ranjan, learned Standing Counsel for respondents. 4. The submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner in nutshell is that the services of employees of Gramya Vikas Abhikaran is not regulated of any statutory rules rather it is regulated by G.O. issued from time to time. As such G.O. dated 17.3.1994 has been issued regulating the recruitment and other terms and conditions of services of employees of Gramya Vikas Abhikaran. Under para—6 of the said G.O., it is provided that seniority of the employees has to be determined in accordance with U.P. Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as 1991 Rules) as amended from time to time. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also drawn attention of the Court, on the appendix of the said rules which enumerates various categories of post existing in Gramya Vikas Abhikaran including number of sanctioned post, appointing authority and source of recruitment on such posts. At Serial No. 10 of the appendix, the post of Junior Accounts Clerk is mentioned which is to be filled by the selection committee through direct recruitment. At Serial No. 9 of the said appendix, the post of Assistant Accountant has been mentioned which is liable to be filled by cent per cent promotion of Junior Accounts Clerk on the basis of seniority subject to rejection of unfit by departmental selection committee. At Serial No. 8 of the appendix, the post of Accountant is mentioned which is also liable to be filled by cent per cent promotion of Assistant Accountant on the basis of seniority subject to rejection of unfit by the departmental selection committee. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that from the aforesaid facts it is clear that the post of Junior Accounts Clerk is lowest post in the aforesaid hierarchy of service and liable to be filled through direct recruitment. The next higher promotional post is Assistant Accountant is liable to be filled only by promotion from a single feeding cadre of Junior Accounts Clerk, therefore, for determination of seniority on the post of Assistant Accountant Rule 6 of 1991Rules is attracted and it is also revealed from the impugned seniority list dated 1.9.1998 that the seniority on the post of Assistant Accountant is determined under 1991 Rules as amended from time to time. Rule 6 of 1991 Rules provides that where according to the service rules, appointments are to be made only by promotion from a single feeding cadre, the seniority inter se of persons so appointed shall be the same as it was in the feeding cadre. Explanation appended to the said rules further provides that a person senior in the feeding cadre shall, even though promoted after the promotion of a person junior to him in the feeding cadre shall, in the cadre to which they are promoted, regain the seniority as it was in the feeding cadre. According to him, virtually it is seniority position in the feeding cadre which is decisive factor to determine the seniority position in the promotional cadre also instead of respective date of promotion on such promotional post. 5. Sri A.P. Tewari has further submitted that although impugned seniority list it has been drawn purporting it to be under 1991 Rules but in fact while determining the inter se seniority of members of service of Assistant Accountant the provisions of Rule 6 has not been adhered to and seniority list was not drawn in conformity of Rule 6 of 1991 Rules. While substantiating his submission he has placed reliance upon a chart shown in para-4 of the supplementary affidavit filed in the writ petition, whereby he has demonstrated that the persons mentioned therein, though promoted earlier to the petitioner on the post of Assistant Accountant but they were appointed on the post of feeding cadre i.e. Junior Accounts Clerk subsequent to the appointment of petitioner and they were junior to the petitioner on the said post of Junior Accounts Clerk. However, the petitioner was promoted on the post of Assistant Accountant subsequent to them but once he has been promoted on the post of Assistant Accountant even subsequently from the promotion of aforesaid persons he will regain his seniority position on the post of Assistant Accountant as it was in feeding cadre of Junior Accounts Clerk, and he should be treated to be senior to the aforesaid persons mentioned in para-4 of the supplementary affidavit on the post of Assistant Accountant. In my opinion, the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner appears to have some substance and requires to be examined. 6. In my opinion, the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner appears to have some substance and requires to be examined. 6. In order to appreciate the controversy, it would be useful to extract the provision of Rule 6 of 1991 Rules along with explanation, as under : "6. Seniority where appointments by promotion only from a single feeding cadre.—Where according to the service rules, appointments are to be made only by promotion from a single feeding cadre, the seniority inter se of person so appointed shall be the same as it was in the feeding cadre. Explanation—A person senior in the feeding cadre shall, even though promoted after the promotion of a person junior to him in the feeding cadre shall, in the cadre to which they are promoted, regain the seniority as it was in the feeding cadre." 7. Although from a plain reading of the aforesaid Rules it is clear that where the appointments on a post are to be made only by promotion from single feeding cadre, the inter-se-seniority of the persons so appointed by promotion shall be the same as it was in the feeding cadre but the explanation appended to the said rules further clarified the position that if a junior person in the feeding cadre promoted earlier and senior person promoted later in point of time subsequent to the junior persons, but once senior person is promoted he will regain his seniority position as it was in the feeding cadre but before applying the aforesaid rules in given facts and circumstances of the case one must be clear about the function of the explanation appended to the particular statute. 8. In this connection it would be useful to refer the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in S. Sundaram Pillai etc. v. V.R. Pattabiraman, AIR 1985 SC 582 wherein after referring earlier cases and juristic opinions in paras 45 and 52 of the decision, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under : “45. We have now to consider as to what is the impact of the Explanation on the proviso which deals with the question of wilful default. Before, however, we embark on an enquiry into this difficult and delicate question, we must appreciate the intent, purpose and legal effect of an Explanation. We have now to consider as to what is the impact of the Explanation on the proviso which deals with the question of wilful default. Before, however, we embark on an enquiry into this difficult and delicate question, we must appreciate the intent, purpose and legal effect of an Explanation. It is now well settled that an Explanation added to a statutory provision is not a substantive provision in any sense of the term but as the plain meaning of the word itself shows it is merely meant to explain or clarify certain ambiguities which may have crept in the statutory provision. Sarathi in ‘Interpretation of Statutes’ while dwelling on the various aspect of an Explanation observes as follows : “(a) The object of an explanation is to understand the Act in the light of the explanation. (b) It does not ordinarily enlarge the scope of the original section which it explains, but only makes the meaning clear beyond dispute.” 52. Thus, from a conspectus of the authorities referred to above, it is manifest that the object of an Explanation to a statutory provision is— (a) to explain the meaning and intendment of the Act itself, (b) where there is any obscurity or vagueness in the main enactment, to clarify the same so as to make it consistent with the dominant object which it seems to subserve, (c) to provide an additional support to the dominant object of the Act in order to make it meaningful and purposeful, (d) an Explanation cannot in any way interfere with or change the enactment or any part thereof but where some gap is left which is relevant for the purpose of the Explanation, in order to suppress the mischief and advance the object of the Act it can help or assist the Court in interpreting the true purport and intendment of the enactment, and (e) it cannot, however, take away a statutory right with which any person under a statute has been clothed or set at naught the working of an Act by becoming an hindrance in the interpretation of the same.” 9. Thus, in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is clear that the explanation appended to Rule 6 of 1991 Rules is intended to clarify the substantive provisions of Rules by providing additional support to it, leaving no scope for doubt about the true import of the said Rules, indicated hereinbefore. 10. Now applying the aforestated principles on the facts of the case it is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Junior Clerk on 15.11.1980 which was redesignated as Junior Accounts Clerk, it is to be further pointed out that the petitioner Ramesh Chandra Pathak finds place at Serial No. 82 in the impugned seniority list dated 1.9.1998 on the post of Assistant Accountant and his date of promotion on the said post has been mentioned as 23.11.1990. The persons who have been promoted earlier to him on the said post in the year 1987-88 to 1988-89, they have been placed above in the said gradation list irrespective of the fact that they were junior to the petitioner on the post of Junior Accounts Clerk and appointed subsequent to the appointment of petitioner in the feeding cadre of Junior Accounts Clerk. From a perusal of para 4 of the supplementary affidavit filed in the writ petition, it appears that Sri Mathura Prasad Dubey was appointed as Junior Accounts Clerk on 13.7.1982 and placed in the impugned seniority list at Serial No. 41 above the petitioner. Sri Ramadhin was appointed as Junior Accounts Clerk on 25.4.1981 was placed in the seniority list at Serial No. 44. Sri Chandan Singh Parihar was appointed as Junior Accounts Clerk on 31.12.1981 and placed in seniority list at Serial No. 54. Sri Amod Pratap Singh was appointed on 20.5.1982 on the post of Junior Accounts Clerk and placed at Serial No. 55 in the impugned final seniority list. Sri Ajit Kumar was appointed on 5.8.1981 as Junior Accounts Clerk and placed at Serial No. 59 in the seniority list. Sri Shyam Singh was appointed as Junior Accounts Clerk on 12.2.1982 and placed at Serial No. 60 of the seniority list. Sri C.S. Chauhan was appointed as Junior Accounts Clerk on 13.12.1982 and placed at Serial No. 61 in the seniority list. Sri Mewa Lal was appointed as Junior Accounts Clerk on 1.2.1983 and placed at Serial No. 64 in the seniority list. Sri C.S. Chauhan was appointed as Junior Accounts Clerk on 13.12.1982 and placed at Serial No. 61 in the seniority list. Sri Mewa Lal was appointed as Junior Accounts Clerk on 1.2.1983 and placed at Serial No. 64 in the seniority list. Sri Amar Jeet was appointed as Junior Accounts Clerk on 1.1.1982 and placed at Serial No. 65 of the seniority list. Sri Anand Kumar Tiwari was appointed as Junior Accounts Clerk on 17.6.1985 and placed at Serial No. 66 of the seniority list. Sri Shashi Kant Tiwari was appointed on 4.1.1982 on the post of Junior Accounts Clerk and placed at Serial No. 69 of the seniority list. Sri Naveen Pathak was appointed as Junior Accounts Clerk on 28.3.1985 and placed at Serial No. 74 of the seniority list. Sri Sanjay Kumar Paliwal was appointed on the post of Junior Accounts Clerk on 29.3.1985 and placed at Serial No. 75 in the impugned seniority list. Sri Kripa Shankar was appointed on 24.3.1981 as Junior Accounts Clerk and placed at Serial No. 76 of the impugned seniority list. Sri Brij Lal was appointed as Junior Clerk on 25.3.1981 and placed at Serial No. 77 of the seniority list. Sri B.S. Rawat was appointed on 18.5.1985 as Junior Accounts Clerk and placed at Serial No. 79 of the seniority list. 11. It is no doubt true that the aforesaid persons have been promoted on the post of Assistant Accountant earlier to the promotion of petitioner but since the post of Assistant Accountant is liable to be filled up by cent per cent promotion from single feeding cadre post of Junior Accounts Clerk, therefore, their seniority has to be determined as per seniority in the feeding cadre i.e. on the post of Junior Accounts Clerk according to Rules 6 of 1991 Rules, but there is nothing on record either revealed from the counter affidavit or record shown by the learned Standing Counsel that except the date of promotion on the post of Assistant Accountant the criteria for determination of seniority as existing in the feeding cadre was applied while preparing the impugned seniority list dated 1.9.1998 on the post of Assistant Accountant which is liable to be filled up by cent per cent promotion from the post of Junior Accounts Clerk. In my opinion, according to Rule 6 of 1991 Rules the date of promotion on the post of Accountant is not determinative factor for the purposes of determination of seniority instead thereof in cases like present one the date of appointment on the post of feeding cadre is determinative factor for the purpose of determination of seniority amongst the members of Assistant Accountant. It is no doubt true that the petitioner has been promoted subsequent to the aforesaid persons on the post of Assistant Accountant but once he has been promoted on the post of Assistant Accountant even subsequent to the aforementioned persons he will regain his seniority position as it was in the feeding cadre of Junior Accounts Clerk. In my opinion, the view taken by concerned authority while preparing the impugned seniority list, contrary to it, appears to be contrary to the statutory provisions of Rule 6 of 1991, cannot be sustained, therefore, the impugned seniority list dated 1.9.1998 of Assistant Accountant cannot be maintained accordingly, the same is hereby quashed. 12. Since the next higher promotion on the post of Accountant has been made on the basis of impugned seniority list by adopting criteria of seniority subject to rejection of unfit. Therefore, the said promotion can also not be sustained for the same reasons. Accordingly, the promotion order dated 10.11.1999 as contained in Annexure—7 of the writ petition is hereby quashed. The order passed by the Commissioner, Gramya Vikas, U.P. Lucknow on 10.8.2000 while deciding the representation of petitioner as contained in Annexure—10 of the writ petition appears to be erroneous and misconceived for the reasons aforestated. Therefore, the same is also liable to be quashed and accordingly is hereby quashed. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. 13. The respondents are directed to draw fresh seniority list of Assistant Accountant according to the observation made hereinbefore by taking into account aforesaid principle after seeking objection from all the persons likely to be affected within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before the concerned authority. The respondents are further directed to draw fresh seniority list by taking into account the date of substantive/regular appointment on the post of Junior Accounts Clerk in the feeding cadre and not the date of promotion on the post of Assistant Accountant. 14. The respondents are further directed to draw fresh seniority list by taking into account the date of substantive/regular appointment on the post of Junior Accounts Clerk in the feeding cadre and not the date of promotion on the post of Assistant Accountant. 14. It is nowhere mentioned in the counter affidavit that during the service of petitioner on the post of Junior Accounts Clerk or the post of Assistant Accountant the petitioner has any adverse entry in the character roll and annual confidential reports. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be denied promotion on the next higher post of Accountant as the criteria for promotion on the said post from the post of Assistant Accountant is seniority subject to rejection of unfit, unless he is found unfit for promotion he can claim his promotion on the next higher post as a matter of right from the date when his juniors have been promoted on the said post of Accountant. 15. The respondents are further directed to undertake and decide the issue of promotion within another period of one month after finalisation of seniority list. Until such exercise is undertaken and completed by the respondent authorities, the persons who have been promoted vide order dated 10.11.1999 which has been quashed by this Court shall not be disturbed. If at the time of final promotion the persons already promoted are found to be entitled for promotion they shall be retained. In case those promoted persons are to be reverted on account of order passed by this Court, they should also be heard by the respondents before their reversion from the post of accountant to the post of Assistant Accountant. 16. Before parting with the judgment ,I need to clarify that since the issue has been decided only on principle for determination of seniority and promotion which could not be disputed by learned Standing Counsel and factual aspect of the matter has been left over for determination to the concerned authority afresh after hearing the persons likely to be affected, therefore, hearing of individual private persons before this Court who are likely to be affected by this judgment, was merely an empty formality. As such in view of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and others, AIR 1999 SC 2583 ; Canara Bank and others v. Sri Debasis Das and others, JT 2003 (3) SC 183 and Canara Bank v. V.K. Awasthy, JT 2005 (4) SC 40, useless formality theory can be pressed into service. 17. In view of the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. ————