JUDGMENT By the Court.—We have heard Sri C.B. Yadav, senior counsel assisted by Sri Punit Kumar Gupta for the petitioner. Learned standing counsel represents the State respondents. Sri U.N. Sharma, Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Chandan Sharma appears for respondent Nos. 3 and 4. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer, in the Public Works Department in the year 1970. He was promoted on the post of Assistant Engineer, on ad hoc basis, on 6.6.1981, and was regularized as Assistant Engineer in the year 1987. He was thereafter promoted as Executive Engineer on 6.10.1994. 3. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs : “(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer on the basis of the eligibility-list already forwarded to the State Government. (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to accord all the consequential benefits to the petitioner treating him to be notionally promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer with effect from the date juniors to him have been promoted on the said post. (iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Superintending Engineer against the available vacancies, as recommended by the departmental Promotion Committee held in the year 2005; (iv) issue such other and further writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.” 4. It is admitted that during pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), and has been promoted in July, 2010 as Superintending Engineer. The petitioner thereafter amended the reliefs, and has now claimed, further promotion on the post of Chief Engineer, from the date, persons junior to him were granted promotion. The amendment application was allowed on 23.3.2010. 5. A preliminary objection has been taken by Sri U.N. Sharma that the main relief against which the writ petition has been filed, has been allowed to him by the department. He is now claiming seniority with effect from the date his juniors in the same category (Scheduled Caste) were promoted. The amendment application was allowed on 23.3.2010. 5. A preliminary objection has been taken by Sri U.N. Sharma that the main relief against which the writ petition has been filed, has been allowed to him by the department. He is now claiming seniority with effect from the date his juniors in the same category (Scheduled Caste) were promoted. He is claiming to be senior to Sri Suresh Kumar, Sri Atar Singh, Sri Arvind Kumar Bhatia, Sri Gauri Shankar and Sri Santosh Kumar who were recruited directly as Assistant Engineer in the service and were promoted as Executive Engineer on 5.10.1983. Their place in the seniority was finalised after the judgment of the Supreme Court in Keshav Deo and another v. State of U.P. and others, 1999 (1) SCC 286 at Sl. Nos. 1436, 1447, 1448, 1451 and 1454 respectively whereas the petitioner is place at Sl. No. 1132 6. We find that the petitioner was promoted as Executive Engineer on 6.10.1994, and in the seniority of Assistant Engineers, he has been placed senior to Sri Suresh Kumar and others on the ground that the vacancy had arisen in his quota on 6.6.1981. 7. The petitioner’s seniority was refixed by providing the vacancies which were available in terms of Keshav Deo (Supra), in which the Supreme Court has held as follows : “13. From the Rules applicable to the parties, the following position emerges : (a) The number of vacancies for each year has to be determined. (b) They have to be filled from the sources mentioned in the rules in the proportion specified. (c) Selection of candidates from each source to be made in the prescribed manner. (d) In the case of promotions from Subordinate Engineering Service, 25 per cent of the vacancies are reserved for them. (e) Such of the candidates who are recommended by the Commission after following the prescribed procedure will be appointed to fill up the vacancies for the specified year. (f) If anybody is appointed with effect from a back date, that date will be deemed to be the date of substantive appointment. (g) Seniority of such person has to be counted from that date whether he was working on that post on officiating or ad hoc basis. (h) It follows as a Corollary that any person appointed subsequent to the said date will be junior to him. 14. (g) Seniority of such person has to be counted from that date whether he was working on that post on officiating or ad hoc basis. (h) It follows as a Corollary that any person appointed subsequent to the said date will be junior to him. 14. Bearing the above principles in mind, the facts of the case may be analysed. Undisputedly, the appellants possessed the requisite qualifications for the post of Assistant Engineer. Their promotions were within the quota prescribed for them as there were sufficient number of vacancies reserved for promotees. They were selected by the Departmental Promotion Committee even for their ad hoc promotion. They were recommended by the Commission after some years but with reference to 1979. After such recommendation, their promotions were confirmed with effect from 30-5-1979. The impugned seniority list was prepared on that basis after the issue of directions by the High Court in D.N. Saksena and V.K. Yadav. It goes without saying that the said seniority list is in accordance with the Rules and cannot be disturbed. But unfortunately the High Court has upset that list on the ground that it violates the Rule in ‘P. D. Aggarwal’. 28. Before parting with the case, we wish to place on record our strong disapproval of the stand taken by the State Government in this appeal. In the High Court, Government stood by the seniority list and justified it. When the High Court allowed the writ petition, the Govt. ought to have filed an appeal in this Court particularly because the promotees were not made parties to the writ petition. Not only did the Govt. fail to do so but in this Court it actively supported the case of the writ petitioners. The conduct of the Govt. is highly reprehensible. It is only because of such attitude, the disputes between direct recruits on the one hand and promotees on the other became perennial. It is high time the Govt. realised that if the employees are made to live through endless litigations, administration cannot be carried on properly”. 8. Sri U.N. Sharma, submits that as a consequence of redrawing the seniority list in terms of decision of the Supreme Court in Keshav Deo’s case (Supra), some of the persons against whom the petitioner was claiming seniority were reverted. realised that if the employees are made to live through endless litigations, administration cannot be carried on properly”. 8. Sri U.N. Sharma, submits that as a consequence of redrawing the seniority list in terms of decision of the Supreme Court in Keshav Deo’s case (Supra), some of the persons against whom the petitioner was claiming seniority were reverted. They have filed a writ petition No. 1492 of 2004 (S/B) - Krishna Kumar and six others v. State of U.P. and others, including Surendra Kumar, Atar Singh, Bharat Singh, Arvind Kumar Bhatia. By an order dated 7.2.2005, the High Court at Lucknow has directed that they shall not be reverted in pursuance of the impugned seniority list dated 3.9.2004 redrawn in pursuance to judgment in Keshav Deo’s case. 9. The petitioner’s prayer to give seniority with effect from the date when his juniors were promoted or that the vacancies made available to him for promotion as Chief Engineer depends upon the decision of the writ petition No. 1492 (S/B) of 2004, and thus in order to avoid any conflicting judgment, we do not propose to consider the relief of giving seniority from the date of his alleged juniors mentioned as above were promoted. We however give liberty to the petitioner to seek impleadment in writ petition No. 1492 (S/B) of 2004 pending at Lucknow. 10. Sri C.B. Yadav submits that DPC, for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer has been held but that the result has been withheld. Learned standing counsel clarified that the results have been withheld as the validity of Rule 8-A of the Reservation Rules 1994 was under challenge - both at Allahabad and Lucknow. 11. We have been informed that the High Court at Allahabad has upheld the validity of Rule 8-A in Mukund Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. and others, 2010(10) ADJ 39 (DB). Now, since the validity of Rule 8-A has been upheld by the Court, there is no impediment in declaring the result of the DPC for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer. 12. We therefore dispose of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner, to seek impleadment in the writ petition pending at Lucknow for the relief of grant of promotion w.e.f. date when his junior were promoted (with reference to redrawn seniority list dated 3.1.2004). 12. We therefore dispose of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner, to seek impleadment in the writ petition pending at Lucknow for the relief of grant of promotion w.e.f. date when his junior were promoted (with reference to redrawn seniority list dated 3.1.2004). With regard to prayer for declaring the result of DPC for selection to the post of Chief Engineer, the State Government will declare the result, unless there is any other impediment, or stay order operating, which may affect the declaration of result. —————