JUDGMENT 1. - By this petition for writ, a direction is sought by the petitioner for his promotion to the post of Mistry Grade-I from the date person junior to him stood promoted as such. 2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was employed with Indira Gandhi Canal Project (hereinafter referred to as I.G.N.P.) as mason on work-charge basis with effect from 13th July, 1975. One Shri Ishwar Lal was also employed as mason in work-charge cadre with I.G.N.P. On 22nd April, 1980. The petitioner as well as Shri Ishwar Lal both were employed in 16th Division of I.G.N.P., Bikaner. Respondents under an order dated 01st October, 1983 allowed promotion to Ishwar Lal to the post of Mistry Grade-I as per provisions of the Standing Order for workmen engaged on work-charge establishment in Rajasthan Canal Project. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner submitted a complaint to the competent authority of the department and by acting upon the same, by order dated 10th August, 1992, promotion given to Shri Ishwar Lal vide order dated 01st October, 1983 was withdrawn. 3. Shri Ishwar Lal assailed validity of the order dated 10th August, 1992 by preferring a petition for writ before this Court and that came to be accepted on the count that the order impugned was passed in violation of principles of natural justice, accordingly, an order dated 07th August, 1996 was passed by the Executive Engineer, 16th Division, I.G.N.P., Bikaner, withdrawing the order dated 10th August, 1992. Accordingly, position of Ishwar Lal as Mistry Grade-I as that was prior to 10th August, 1992 stood restored. 4. The petitioner again approached to respondents by way of submitting representation, with a claim for promotion as Mistry Grade-I being senior to Ishwar Lal. On being failed to get any favourable decision from the respondents, he approached this Court by way of filing this petition for writ. 5. 4. The petitioner again approached to respondents by way of submitting representation, with a claim for promotion as Mistry Grade-I being senior to Ishwar Lal. On being failed to get any favourable decision from the respondents, he approached this Court by way of filing this petition for writ. 5. It is stated by learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner as well as Ishwar Lal both were working in 16th Division, I.G.N.P., Bikaner and in the aforesaid Division, petitioner being senior to Ishwar Lal should have been promoted first as Mistry Grade-I. Per contra, it is stated by the respondents that seniority in I.G.N.P. is require to be maintained unit-wise in accordance with applicable Standing Orders and the petitioner was working in a unit different to unit in which Ishwar Lal was working, therefore, seniority of both persons can not be equated. It is asserted that promotion was given to Ishwar Lal in the unit in which he was working. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. Under the Standing Order for workmen engaged on work-charge cadre in Rajasthan Canal Project, the term 'unit' means - "territorial jurisdiction of authority competent to make appointment on work-charge establishment". In the same Standing Order, Chief Engineer, I.G.N.P. under an office order dated 25th June, 1981 framed "The Rajasthan Canal Project Workcharge Employees Promotion Rules, 1981". As per those Rules, Appointing Authority to work-charge cadre are Chief Engineer/Additional Chief Engineer, Superintending Engineers and Executive Engineers. 8. Assistant Engineer, under the Rules of 1981, is having no authority to make appointment and as such, the units as defined under the Standing Order could be at the minimum level of Executive Engineer. It is not in dispute that the petitioner as well as Shri Ishwar Lal both were working in 16th Division of I.G.N.P., Bikaner and that Division is within territorial jurisdiction and control of the Executive Engineer. The unit of the petitioner as well as of Shri Ishwar Lal, therefore, is 16th Division, I.G.N.P., Bikaner and no other sub-division. Petitioner, therefore, rightly claimed seniority vis-a-vis Shri Ishwar Lal. 9. From perusal of document Annx.1, that is, seniority list relating to work-charge Masons working in I.G.N.P., name of petitioner is shown at serial No.2 whereas name of Ishwar Lal is at serial No.5. Petitioner, therefore, rightly claimed seniority vis-a-vis Shri Ishwar Lal. 9. From perusal of document Annx.1, that is, seniority list relating to work-charge Masons working in I.G.N.P., name of petitioner is shown at serial No.2 whereas name of Ishwar Lal is at serial No.5. This fact also establishes that the petitioner and Shri Ishwar Lal were working in the same unit and petitioner is senior to Shri Ishwar Lal. Respondents have already given promotion to Shri Ishwar Lal, ignoring claim of the petitioner, who is senior to him. There is no just reason for not considering candidature of the petitioner for promotion as Mistry Grade-I from the date the same is accorded to Shri Ishwar Lal. 10. Accordingly, this petition for writ deserves acceptance and the same is allowed. Respondents are directed to consider candidature of the petitioner for the purpose of promotion to the post of Mistry Grade-I from the date same was accorded to Shri Ishwar Lal. If the petitioner is otherwise found suitable, promotion as aforesaid be given to him.No order as to costs.Writ Petition Allowed. *******