JUDGMENT : Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. The petitioner was appointed on daily waged basis as Cleaner against the vacancy on 1.10.1986. He was regularized as Cleaner on 6.11.1997. The post of cleaner is in the feeder category for promotion to the post of Driver, as per the R & P Rules, framed vide Annexure P-1. According to bye laws 3.4, the inter-se seniority of the employees of the respondent-Corporation is to be determined based on the length of service in the grade. 2. The tentative seniority list of Cleaners as it stood on 25.3.2011, was notified on 2.4.2011. The respondent-Corporation has drawn two seniority lists of Cleaners, one is at page 26 and the second is at page 27 of the paper book. The petitioner, as per the seniority list at page 26 of the paper book, is at Sr. No. 1. Respondents No. 3 & 4 are at Sr. Nos. 8 and 9 of seniority list at page 27 of the paper book. Their date of appointment is 3.5.2003 and 14.6.2004, respectively. The date of regularization of the petitioner is 6.11.1997 and his date of appointment as daily waged Cleaner is 1.10.1986. The respondent-Corporation has promoted respondent No. 3 as Driver on 21.11.2011 as per Annexure P-5. Respondent No. 4 has been promoted as Driver on 20.6.2012, vide Annexure P-7. 3. The seniority was to be determined on the basis of the length of service of those persons, who were in the same grade. The petitioner and respondents No. 3 & 4 were in the same grade. However, surprisingly, the respondent-Corporation in defiance of service jurisprudence has drawn two seniority lists, as noticed hereinabove. The explanation given in the reply filed is that the petitioner has been regularized in his personal post and the respondents No. 3 & 4 were appointed in the regular cadre. There is fallacy in the averments contained in the reply. The classification made on the basis of ?personal post? and ?cadre post? is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. All the Cleaners form homogeneous class. 4. The petitioner was working on daily wage basis since 1.10.1986 and regularized on 6.11.1997. He would be deemed to be regularized in the regular cadre. The classification made on the basis of ?personal post? and ?cadre post? is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. All the Cleaners form homogeneous class. 4. The petitioner was working on daily wage basis since 1.10.1986 and regularized on 6.11.1997. He would be deemed to be regularized in the regular cadre. The respondent No. 3 was appointed on compassionate basis, as per seniority list only on 3.5.2003 and respondent No. 4 on 14.6.2004, but they stood promoted to the post of Driver by ignoring the petitioners. The action of the respondents, ignoring the petitioner for promotion and considering respondents No. 3 & 4 as Drivers, is illegal and arbitrary and thus violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner was also in feeder category for promotion to the post of Driver and has a better right vis-à-vis respondents No. 3 & 4, since the post of Driver is a non-selection post. The seniority list should have been drawn, as per the bye laws, on the basis of the length of service. The petitioner has a fundamental right to be considered for promotion in accordance with law. 5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Annexure P-5 dated 21.11.2011 and Annexure P-7 dated 20.6.2012, are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to re-draw the seniority list Annexure P-4 on the basis of length of service and to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Driver. Needful be done within a period of ten weeks from today. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.