JUDGMENT : Hasnain Massodi, J. 1. Petitioner is working as Fisheries Development Officer in Fisheries Department of J&K Government. He is aggrieved with promotion of respondents 5 to 9 as Inspectors Fisheries, ahead of him, as also their placement in Seniority List of Inspector Fisheries, circulated by respondent department. Petitioner, on strength of case set up, seeks following relief: a) A writ of Certiorari quashing promotion of respondents 5 to 9, or In alternative direct respondents 1&2 to treat respondents 5 to 9 to have been promoted after petitioner/give effect to promotion of respondents 5 to 9 from the date they are entitled to in view of Recruitment Rules; b) A writ of Certiorari, quashing seniority list or quash seniority in so far as it relates to respondents 5 to 9 and show petitioner at his right place at serial No. 07 and show respondents 5 to 9 at their appropriate place; c) A writ of Mandamus, commanding respondents 3&4 not to act upon recommendation made by respondents 1&2, vide letter dated 22nd October 2010 and not to accord confirmation to respondents 5 to 9 with a further direction to respondents 1&2 to recommend name of petitioner to respondent No. 3 for regularization on the post of Fisheries Development Officer. Put briefly, petitioner's case is that vide order No. 298 of 1997 dated 9th October 1997, he was appointed as Surveyor in respondent department; that he was promoted as inspector Fisheries and thereafter in February 2004 placed as Incharge Fisheries Development Officer in his own pay and grade. It is pleaded that respondents in Tentative Seniority List of inspector Fisheries and equivalent officers, notified on 2nd July 2003, included petitioner at serial No. 18, below his juniors, prompting him to make representation to respondents; that a Committee constituted vide order No. 34 of 2004 dated 7th June 2004, to deal with representations, made its recommendations and petitioner was recommended to be included at serial No. 07 in Seniority List. Seniority List according to petitioner however, remained to be finalized notwithstanding orders, passed in another writ petition on same controversy titled Kulbushan Verma v. State of J&K and others (SWP No. 1047/2005). 2. Petitioner aggrieved that he was not given right place in Seniority List, notwithstanding recommendations made by Committee, filed writ petition, registered as SWP No. 1084/2009. Seniority List according to petitioner however, remained to be finalized notwithstanding orders, passed in another writ petition on same controversy titled Kulbushan Verma v. State of J&K and others (SWP No. 1047/2005). 2. Petitioner aggrieved that he was not given right place in Seniority List, notwithstanding recommendations made by Committee, filed writ petition, registered as SWP No. 1084/2009. Writ petition was withdrawn, after Government Advocate made a statement that objections, filed by those aggrieved with Tentative Seniority List, would be considered. Be that as it may Seniority List has been finalized and petitioner included at serial No. 12, below respondents 5 to 9, who, according to petitioner, are junior to him and unjustifiably shown ahead of him in the List. 3. Petitioner's case is that he acquired knowledge about Final Seniority List on 22nd October 2010, after recommendation was made for regularization of Incharge Fisheries Development Officers. It is pleaded that List was not circulated and petitioner denied opportunity to put forth his stand. Petitioner insists that respondents 5 to 9 have been promoted in violation of Rules inasmuch as respondents 5&6 acquired eligibility for promotion on 1st February 2001 and not on 1st April 1999 i.e. date of their promotion. Respondents 7&8, according to petitioner, were eligible for promotion on 1st February 2001 and 25th February 2001 respectively, while they were given promotion from 1999. It is urged that respondents 5 to 9 either did not have requisite qualification or obtain such qualification after promotion. Petitioner insists that respondents 5 to 9 are to be given promotion from the date they acquired eligibility and accordingly placed in Final Seniority List. 4. Writ petition is opposed by respondents 1&2 on the ground that petitioner having entered government service on 1st October 1997, was only a probationer, when respondents 5 to 9 were promoted in 1999 as Inspectors Fisheries. Respondent No. 9 is said to have entered government service in 1979. It is stated that petitioner failed to challenge promotion of respondents 5 to 9 in the year 1999 or immediately thereafter and cannot be permitted to rake up the issue after long delay of 12 years. It is insisted that petitioner as well as respondents 5 to 9 have been placed as Incharge Fisheries Development Officers/Assistant Director Fisheries, and petitioner is left with no grievance. 5. It is insisted that petitioner as well as respondents 5 to 9 have been placed as Incharge Fisheries Development Officers/Assistant Director Fisheries, and petitioner is left with no grievance. 5. Respondents 3&4, in their reply, have taken the stand that respondents 5 to 9 and their other colleagues were considered by Departmental Promotion Committee in its meeting held on 18th January 2011, and have been regularized as Fisheries Development Officers from the dates tabulated in paragraph 01 of reply. Petitioner is said to have been included in wait list to be operated by respondents 1&2 within prescribed period. 6. Respondents 5 to 9 in their counter affidavit have disputed the stand that they lacked eligibility for promotion as Inspectors Fisheries. It is pleaded that petitioner is far junior to respondents 5 to 9 and therefore, does not have right to question their promotion or their placement in Final Seniority List, wherein petitioner is placed below respondents 5 to 9. 7. I have gone through pleadings and heard learned counsel for parties. 8. Controversy raised in present petition makes it necessary to notice relevant part of J&K Fisheries (Subordinate) Services Recruitment Rules, 1998, in force on the date petitioner and respondents 5 to 9 were considered and promoted to post of Inspector Fisheries:- xxx xxx 9. A bare look at Rules would reveal that a member of Class-II -Fisheries Development Assistant/Surveyor Fisheries/Curator/Junior Research Assistant/Marketing Assistant/Processing Assistant/Junior Technologist, would not be eligible for promotion to the post of Inspector Fisheries etcetera unless he has minimum of three years' service to his credit. It needs no emphasis that "service" would mean service in "Class II". Such an official with three years' service may be considered for promotion provided he is M.Sc. Fisheries Management or Masters in Fisheries Science or M.Sc. (Zoology) with Ichthyology as special subject with One year P.G. Certificate course in Inland Fisheries Development and Administration from a recognized Institute. As years put in as Class-II official, increase minimum qualification for promotion as Inspector Fisheries decreases. A Class-II official with 05 years' service, therefore, is only to have B.F. Sc. or B.Sc. Medical (Zoology) with one year P.G. certificate course in Inland Fisheries Development and Administration from a recognized Institute to his credit. As years put in as Class-II official, increase minimum qualification for promotion as Inspector Fisheries decreases. A Class-II official with 05 years' service, therefore, is only to have B.F. Sc. or B.Sc. Medical (Zoology) with one year P.G. certificate course in Inland Fisheries Development and Administration from a recognized Institute to his credit. In case of a Class-II official with 08 years' service, qualification is further brought down to T.D.C. part-I Medical (Zoology) or 10+2 with medical subjects (Zoology) with one year P.G. certificate course in Inland Fisheries Development and Administration from recognized Institute. 10. Respondents 5, 6 & 7 were appointed as Surveyors on 1st February 1996. Respondent No. 8 was so appointed on 25th April 1996 and respondent No. 9 promoted as Surveyor on 7th May 1994. Respondents 5 to 9 became members of Class-II cadre on the aforementioned dates. Respondents 5, 6 & 7 promoted as Inspectors Fisheries with effect from 1st April 1999, respondent No. 8 with effect from 25th April 1999 and respondent No. 9 with effect from 7th May 1999. Respondents 5 to 8, therefore, were promoted as Inspector Fisheries three years after their initial appointment as Surveyors. Respondent No. 9 was promoted 05 years' after his appointment as Surveyor by promotion as Inspector Fisheries. 11. Respondents 5 to 8, though satisfying criteria as regards their service in the cadre in terms of Recruitment Rules, in force on relevant date, could be considered for promotion only in case they had following qualification: (i) M.Sc. Fisheries Management; (ii) Masters of Fisheries Science; (iii) M.Sc. Zoology with Ichthyology as a special subject with one year P.G. certificate course in Inland Fisheries Development and Administration from a recognized Institute Respondent No. 9 could be considered for promotion as Inspector Fisheries, provided he had following qualification: (i) B.F. Sc (ii) B.Sc. Medical (Zoology) with one year P.G. certificate course in Inland Fisheries Development and Administration from a recognized Institute. 12. Let us now examine whether respondents, had requisite qualification to their credit on the date they were favoured with promotion as Inspector Fisheries. 13. Perusal of record available on record would reveal that none of respondents satisfied eligibility laid down under Recruitment Rules in vogue on relevant date to be considered for promotion after putting in 03 years' service in Class-II. 13. Perusal of record available on record would reveal that none of respondents satisfied eligibility laid down under Recruitment Rules in vogue on relevant date to be considered for promotion after putting in 03 years' service in Class-II. Respondents 5 to 9 to be considered for promotion after putting 03 years in Class-II, and before completing 05 years, were to acquire requisite higher qualification. The other option was to wait for 05 years, so that they were considered for promotion with qualification to their credit. It is pertinent to point out that respondents 5 to 9 did have qualification that would entitle them to be considered for promotion as Inspectors Fisheries after putting in 05 years' service in Class-II, However, they did not have qualification as would entitle them to such promotion after putting in only 03 years' service in Class-II. Respondents 5 to 9 did not acquire higher qualification on completion of 03 years or even thereafter but before 05 years. Respondents 5, 6 & 7, therefore, having regard to qualification to their credit, were entitled to be considered for promotion as Inspector Fisheries on or after 1st February 2001. Respondent No. 8, similarly, would be entitled to be considered for promotion on or after 25th April 2001. Respondent No. 9 would get right of consideration after putting 08 years' service i.e. on or after 7th May 2002. Respondents 5 to 9, therefore, did not have right to be considered for promotion on 1st April 1999 much less to be promoted as inspector Fisheries with effect from such date. 14. True that respondents 5 to 9, acquired higher qualification but such qualification was acquired after they completed 05 years' service, and therefore, higher qualification would be of no benefit to them as they obtained right to be considered for promotion before higher qualification was acquired. 15. Let us now turn to petitioner, to find out whether the had a right to be considered for promotion as Inspector Fisheries before respondents 5 to 9, as claimed in petition or after them. Petitioner was appointed as Surveyor on 9th July 1997. Petitioner, therefore, could not claim consideration for promotion before 9th July 2000. He could claim consideration on or after 9th October 2000, provided he had requisite higher qualification to his credit. Record would reveal that petitioner had requisite qualification, i.e. M.Sc. Petitioner was appointed as Surveyor on 9th July 1997. Petitioner, therefore, could not claim consideration for promotion before 9th July 2000. He could claim consideration on or after 9th October 2000, provided he had requisite higher qualification to his credit. Record would reveal that petitioner had requisite qualification, i.e. M.Sc. Zoology with specialization in Ichthyology to his credit and was, therefore, promoted as Inspector Fisheries vide Fisheries Order No. 124 of 2000 dated 26th December 2000, with effect from 1st January 2001. Respondents 5 to 9, therefore, were to be promoted after petitioner. In other words, petitioner has a right to rank senior to respondents 5 to 9, who, as already indicated, have right to be considered for promotion as Inspector Fisheries with effect from 01.02.2001, 25.04.2001 and 07.05.2001 respectively. Petitioner, therefore, is to rank senior to respondents 5 to 9 in Final Seniority List of Inspector Fisheries in the Department i.e. at serial No. 06, circulated vide No. D/Adm./2010/2522, dated 6th September 2010. 16. Petitioner cannot be held guilty of any delay and laches and petition thrown out on said grounds as petitioner has been all along voicing his grievance without redressal. Furthermore seniority list has assumed finality only on 6th September 2010. Petitioner, therefore, accrued cause to question his place in seniority list and placement of respondents 5 to 9 only on the date, he acquired knowledge about Final Seniority List, circulated on 6th September 2010 or at the most on the date order was issued. 17. Respondents 3&4 i.e. J&K Public Service Commission, appear to have accorded consideration to regularization of Fisheries Development Officers pursuant to communication received vide No. PST/Fish/1/96/III dated 22nd October, 2010, and recommended regularization of respondents 5 to 9 as also some other officers. Petitioner has been shown at serial No. 01 in wait list. Petitioner at interim stage sought a direction in the name of Public Service Commission not to act upon communication dated 22nd October 2010, addressed to it by respondents 1&2. However, respondents 3&4 have, notwithstanding relief sought, accorded consideration and made some recommendations. This Court on 13th January 2011 i.e. a few days before respondents 3&4 considered the matter, directed respondents 1 & 2 not to act upon recommendations, if any, received from respondents 3&4. Recommendation is, therefore, expected to be put on hold. However, respondents 3&4 have, notwithstanding relief sought, accorded consideration and made some recommendations. This Court on 13th January 2011 i.e. a few days before respondents 3&4 considered the matter, directed respondents 1 & 2 not to act upon recommendations, if any, received from respondents 3&4. Recommendation is, therefore, expected to be put on hold. It is important to note that notwithstanding inter se seniority dispute, petitioner as well as respondents 5 to 9, are placed as Incharge Fisheries Development Officer. Outcome of writ petition, therefore, is not to change their status, except regularization of petitioner as Fisheries Development Officer, ahead of respondents 5 to 9. For reasons discussed, writ petition is allowed and: i) Seniority List circulated vide No. D/Adm/2010/2522, dated 6th September 2010, is quashed and respondents 1& 2 directed to reframe seniority list including petitioner at serial No. 06 in seniority list i.e. ahead of respondents 5 to 9. ii) Recommendation made by respondents 3&4 as also any action taken on such recommendation is also quashed and respondents directed to consider petitioner for regularization as Fisheries Development Officer, ahead of respondents 5 to 9, and make recommendation, accordingly.