JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner, aggrieved of the Circular dated 26th February, 1998, finalising the Inter-se-Seniority list of Senior Group Officer and Labour Welfare Officers, has approached this Court praying for the following relief(s) : (i) call for the entire record of the case and after examining the same quash and set aside the impugned final inter-se-seniority list dated 26.02.1998 and may kindly be revise the inter-se-seniority list of Sr. Group Officer of Labour Welfare Officer and the petitioner be shown above in the said inter-se-seniority list qua respondent No. 2 & 3 will with consequential benefits. (ii) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction and direct the respondent No. 1 to consider the candidature of the petitioner higher to respondent No. 2 & 3 for promotion on the post of Assist. Manager & if any order is passed during the pendency of writ petition, that shall be taken on record & be quashed & set aside. (iii) issue any other beneficial order or direction which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances in favour of the petitioner. (iv) costs of the present petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner." 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the essential skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised in the writ application needs to be first noticed. The petitioner was initially selected and appointed on the post of Senior Assistant in the Rajasthan State Industrial and Menaral Department Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation', for short), which lateron was bifurcated and the concerned unit is known as the Rajasthan State Menaral Department Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'RSMDC Limited', for short). The services of the petitioner were transferred to RSMDC Limited on 1st November, 1979. The petitioner was accorded promotion on the post of Group Officer in the year 1985. Consequent upon the up-gradation of two posts of Group Officers to that of Senior Group Officers vide order dated 25th January, 1994. The petitioner was appointed as Senior Group Officer in the pay-scale of Rs. 2000-3500 from the date of his joining, as would be reflected from the order dated 12th July, 1994 (Annexure-2). The Corporation issued a Provisional Inter-se-Seniority list on 17th January, 1998, wherein the name of the petitioner was shown at Serial No. 3 with the date of his joining in the cadre as 12th July, 1994. 2000-3500 from the date of his joining, as would be reflected from the order dated 12th July, 1994 (Annexure-2). The Corporation issued a Provisional Inter-se-Seniority list on 17th January, 1998, wherein the name of the petitioner was shown at Serial No. 3 with the date of his joining in the cadre as 12th July, 1994. The Provisional Inter-se-Seniority list also contained the name of respondents No. 2 and 3. Shri S.Ponippas, Labour Welfare Officer with the date of his joining in the cadre as 7th May, 1994 was shown at serial number 5. Shri M. Patidar, respondent No. 3-herein, in the writ application, was also shown at Serial number 6 with the designation of Labour Welfare Officer with the date of joining on 12th May, 1994. It is pleaded case of the petitioner that vide circular dated 18th February, 1998, the Provisional Inter-se-Seniority list, reflecting the Seniority position of Senior Group Officers and Labour Welfare Officers of the Corporation as on 16th January, 1998, reflected his name at Serial No. 5 and that of respondent No. 2 and 3 at Serial No. 3 and 4; above him. The petitioner represented his case as the candidates, whose names were reflected in the Inter-se-Seniority list, were allowed to make representation, if any, within ten days. The respondents, after consideration of the representation submitted by the petitioner, maintained the Provisional Inter-se-Seniority list dated 18th February, 1998 as final Inter-se-Seniority list, as would be evident from the circular dated 26th February, 1998, wherein the petitioner's name was below the respondent No. 2 and 3, in the cadre of Group Officers with his joining in the cadre as on 12th July, 1994. The petitioner aggrieved of action of the respondent-Corporation, in showing him as Junior to respondent No. 2 and 3, who were Labour Welfare Officers; has assailed the action of the respondents as illegal, arbitrary and malafide. 3. In response to the notice of the writ application, the respondents have filed their counter affidavit. The petitioner aggrieved of action of the respondent-Corporation, in showing him as Junior to respondent No. 2 and 3, who were Labour Welfare Officers; has assailed the action of the respondents as illegal, arbitrary and malafide. 3. In response to the notice of the writ application, the respondents have filed their counter affidavit. The respondent-Corporation in its counter affidavit has pleaded that since there are no specific rules to determine the Inter-se-Seniority list of two different cadre i.e. Senior Group Officers and Labour Welfare Officers, therefore, the Corporation adopted the criteria of length of service in the respective cadre, and accordingly, after publication of the provisional Inter-se-Seniority list inviting objections from the candidates aggrieved, if any, finalised the same vide Circular dated 26th February, 1998. It is further pleaded that the service conditions in the Corporation are governed by the RSMDC Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1980, and the mode of recruitment has been detailed out in Scheduled-I wherein the post of Assistant Manager (P & A) is to be filled 25% by direct recruitment and 75% by promotion. Further, the feeder posts for promotion are that of Labour Welfare Officers as well as Senior Group Officers with three years experience as the case may be. The petitioner who joined the post of Senior Group Officer vide order dated 12th July, 1994, in pursuance to his promotion of even the date, is junior to respondents No. 2 and 3, who joined the post of Labour Welfare Officer on 7th and 12th May, 1994, respectively. Therefore, the action of the respondent-Corporation is perfectly legal, valid, just and proper and cannot be faulted on any of the grounds pleaded in the writ application while assailing the legality, validity and correctness of the finalisation of the Inter-se-Seniority list of two different cadres issued vide circular dated 26th February, 1998. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application, vehemently argued that indisputably there are no rules for determination of Inter-se-Seniority list of Sr. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application, vehemently argued that indisputably there are no rules for determination of Inter-se-Seniority list of Sr. Group Officers and Labour Welfare Officers, which are the feeder cadre(s) for promotion to the post of Assistant Manager (P & A), but the respondent-Corporation was obliged to determine the seniority list as per mandate of office order No. M2(38) 197/80 dated 25th August, 1980 wherein clause 3 provides that the candidates appointed by way of promotion shall be senior to those appointed by direct recruitment in the same financial year in view of mandate of rule 9(iv) of RSMDC Recruitment & Promotion Rules, 1980. Since the petitioner was appointed by way of promotion, hence, he ought to have been treated as senior to respondents No. 2 and 3. 5. The learned counsel has made an effort to draw analogy by placing on record an illustration issued vide circular dated 5.9.1998 (Annexure-10)-a final seniority list of Group Officers as on 31st March, 1998, by way of rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Corporation, reiterating the pleaded facts of the counter affidavit, argued that the feeder posts for promotion to the post of Assistant Manager (P & A) are that of Labour Welfare Officers and Group Officers, which are two different, distinct and separate cadre(s). Admittedly, in absence of any rule or guidelines to determine the Inter-se-Seniority of the two cadre(s) for the purpose of consideration for further promotion to the post of Assistant Manager (P&A), the respondent-Corporation adopted the criterion of length of service in the respective cadre. The Management of the respondent-Corporation upgraded two posts of Group Officer in the pay scale of Rs. is 1640-2900, to that of Senior Group Officer in the pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500, with effect from the date these posts are filled in, vide order dated 28th January, 1994. 7. The petitioner, on the recommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee along with one Shri PC. Ahari, was accorded promotion to the post of Senior Group Officer vide order dated 12th July, 1994. Further, the respondents Shri S. Ponippas and Shri M.L. Patidar, Labour Welfare Officers, joined in the cadre on 7th and 12th may, 1994, respectively. 8. 7. The petitioner, on the recommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee along with one Shri PC. Ahari, was accorded promotion to the post of Senior Group Officer vide order dated 12th July, 1994. Further, the respondents Shri S. Ponippas and Shri M.L. Patidar, Labour Welfare Officers, joined in the cadre on 7th and 12th may, 1994, respectively. 8. Applying the criteria of length of service, the modified provisional Inter-se-Seniority List of Senior Group Officer and Labour Welfare Officers of the Corporation as on 16th January, 1998, was published on 18th January, 1994, inviting the objections from the employees aggrieved, if any, within 15 days of the receipt of the communication. The representation of the petitioner was duly considered and a final Inter-se-Seniority list of Senior Group Officers and Labour Welfare Officers, was issued vide impugned order dated 26th February, 1998. Furthermore, since the petitioner as well as the private respondents No. 2 and 3, ave already retired, acquiring the age of superannuation, the claim of the petitioner in the instant writ application has become infructuous. The writ petition, therefore, merits rejection on that count. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the materials available on record. 10. Indisputably, there are no statutory rules providing for determining of Inter-se-Seniority list of Senior Group Officers and Labour Welfare Officers, which are two different cadres. 11. It is also not in dispute between the parties that the feeder posts for promotion to the post of Assistant Manager (P&A) are, Labour Welfare Officer as well as Senior Group Officer with three years experience. The post of Assistant Manager (P&A) is to be filled in 25% by direct recruitment and 75% by promotion. 12. In absence of any criteria and/or statutory rules or guidelines for determination of Inter-se-Seniority of Senior Group Officers and Labour Welfare Officers, the respondent-Corporation adopted the criterion of length of service in the two cadres. The post of Assistant Manager (P&A) is to be filled in 25% by direct recruitment and 75% by promotion. 12. In absence of any criteria and/or statutory rules or guidelines for determination of Inter-se-Seniority of Senior Group Officers and Labour Welfare Officers, the respondent-Corporation adopted the criterion of length of service in the two cadres. The fact that the petitioner was appointed as Senior Group Officer in view of the up-gradation of two posts of Group so Officers vide order dated 12th July, 1994, is not in dispute whereas the private respondents were appointed with the designation of Labour Welfare Officer with the joining date in the cadre as 7th and 12th May, 1994; and thus, were rightly placed above the petitioner in the Inter-se-Seniority list on the basis of length of service. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner though made a reference to the circular dated 05.09.1998 alleging the criterion to be discriminatory by placing it on record as (Annexure-10) which is a final seniority list of Senior group Officers as on 31st March, 1998, but could not lay any factual foundation to sustain the argument. The circular is the final seniority list dated 5th September, 1998 (Annexure-10), of employees not drawn from two different cadres. The criterion of length of service for the purpose of determination of Inter-se-Seniority as the employees drawn from two different cadres i.e. Senior Group Officers and Labour Welfare Officers, in absence of any statutory rules and/or guidelines; cannot be faulted and appears to be reasonable. 14. For the reasons and discussions aforesaid, the petitioner has failed to assail the legality and validity of the action of the respondent-Corporation, on any legal and valid ground, in finalisation of the Inter-se-Seniority list of Senior Group Officers and Labour Welfare Officers, employees of two, different cadre(s), vide circular dated 26th February, 1998. 15. The writ petition is devoid of any substance and lacks in merit, and therefore, deserves to be dismissed. 16. Ordered accordingly. 17. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.Writ petition dismissed as devoid of substance. *******