JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a general constable in police on 8.6.1969. Thereafter on 1.4.1977 he was posted as a learner driver in the Transport Department. On 17.1.1978 he acquired the driving licence. On 14.3.1980 he was posted as a driver constable. In 1996 the selection committee for promotion from the post of driver constable to driver Havildar recommended his name at serial No. 2 of the merit list. On 4.4.1998 promotion was given to the persons junior to him leading to the institution of C.W.J.C. No. 8097 of 2000. This Court directed that if a person junior to the petitioner has been promoted, the case of the petitioner is required to be considered in that light. The respondents have now passed the impugned order dated 6.11.2000. 3. The stand of the respondents is that the petitioner was inducted as a learner driver in the Transport Department at his own request, that the order for his absorption as a constable driver has been passed on 23.7.1983, that this was at the choice request of the petitioner. The persons who have been promoted were born in the cadre of driver constable prior to 23.7.1983. There has, therefore, been no injustice to the petitioner. 4. Once the petitioner changed the cadre at his own choice, his seniority position in the new cadre changed accordingly. He went to the bottom of the seniority list of drivers in the cadre of driver constable in the Transport Department on 14.3.1980 when he was posted as such after acquisition of a driving licence in accordance with law. Thereafter issuance of any order for his absorption merely became a fortuitous circumstance. The impugned order does not refer to any other ground which the petitioner was required to fulfill before the order for his absorption could be issued. To hold that the respondents at their whims could issue formal orders for his absorption at any time that they wish, notwithstanding he is being born in the cadre of driver constable on 14.3.1980, shall cause gross injustice to the petitioner. 5. To hold that the respondents at their whims could issue formal orders for his absorption at any time that they wish, notwithstanding he is being born in the cadre of driver constable on 14.3.1980, shall cause gross injustice to the petitioner. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ application is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide the case of the petitioner for promotion on the post of driver Havildar considering that he has been held to be born in the cadre of driver constable on 14.3.1980. 6. Let such consideration be done and final order be issued within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 7. This writ application stands allowed.