ORDER 1. We have heard both sides. 2. By the order dated 9.7.2007 notice was directed to be issued to the private Respondents No.3 to 5 by registered post. Notices were actually issued and according to the office report dated 21.2.2011 Respondents No.3 and 4 have been served and on that date service was awaited on Respondent No.5. 3. Since notices were issued by registered post and the undelivered cover has not been received back and there is nothing to indicate that the registered notice was not issued at the correct and complete address of Respondent No.5, therefore, Respondent No.5 is presumed to be served as provided under Rule 13 of Chapter 15 of M.P. High Court Rules, 2008. 4. The dispute in this appeal is that the Respondent No.3, 4 and 5 were junior to the appellant. When the case for promotion to the next higher post was taken up the service records of the two petitioners in the writ petition were not available and, therefore, the cases of Respondents No.3, 4 and 5 who were juniors to petitioners in W.P. No. 872/1994 were considered for promotion and they were recommended for promotion. While making this recommendation it was specifically observed that the cases of two petitioners would be considered when their service records become available and if they are granted promotion, their seniority would be protected. 5. It is thus obvious that the appellant was not found unfit for promotion when the cases of respondents No.3, 4 and 5 were considered and recommended for promotion, not on account of any fault on the part of the appellant. The case of the appellant for promotion was deferred as his service records were not available. As soon as service records of the appellant were available his case was considered and he was found suitable for promotion and was granted promotion, vide order dated 12.8.1988. 6. The appellant came to know that he had been shown junior to the Respondent No.3 to 5 in the year 1993 when gradation list was published showing the position as on 1.4.1993. The appellant accordingly submitted a representation for assigning him his due seniority. Thereafter he filed a writ petition in the year 1994. 6. The appellant came to know that he had been shown junior to the Respondent No.3 to 5 in the year 1993 when gradation list was published showing the position as on 1.4.1993. The appellant accordingly submitted a representation for assigning him his due seniority. Thereafter he filed a writ petition in the year 1994. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order dated 6.3.2006 has dismissed the writ petition, on the ground that the private respondents were promoted in 1988 and their promotions were challenged by the appellant in the writ petition after six years i.e. 1994. Thus, the challenge to the promotions of private respondents is belated. 7. In our considered view the approach of the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained, because the appellant was not questioning the promotion to the private respondents, but was seeking restoration of seniority in the gradation list published in the year 1993. 8. Considering the above circumstances we set aside the order of learned Single Judge and direct that the seniority of the appellant above the private respondents will be restored to the same position, as the appellant and private respondents occupied prior to the promotion. The appellant would be at liberty to submit a representation to the company authority with regard to the consequential benefits, if any. 9. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed as indicated above.