JUDGMENT : This writ petition is filed with the following prayers. (i). call for the records leading to Exts. P1, P4, P7, P10, P18, P21, P22, P23 and P24 and quash them to the extent objected to in the Writ Petition by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction. (ii). issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1st respondent to assign correct rank and seniority to the petitioners in Ext. P1 provisional seniority list of L.D. Clerks and P21 final seniority list of Head Clerks eligible for promotion to the post of Junior Superintendent. (iii). issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1st respondent to give the promotion of the petitioners to the posts of L.D. Clerk, Senior Office Assistant and Head Clerk retrospective effect from the dates w.e.f. which their immediate juniors were promoted to those posts and grant them all consequential benefits. (iv). issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1st respondent to promote the petitioners to the post of Junior Superintendent with retrospective effect from the dates on which the respondents 2 to 12 are promoted to those posts and given them all consequential service and monetary benefits. (v). issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1st respondent to dispose of Exts. P15, P16 and P19 within a time limit to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court. and (vi). grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case including the costs of this Writ Petition (Civil). 2. It is submitted that the 1st petitioner joined service of the 1st respondent as Junior Office Assistant on 1.1.1996 and the 2nd petitioner on 1.2.1996. They were appointed as Lower Division Clerks on 3.10.1998. A provisional Seniority list of Lower Division Clerk was published by the 1st respondent by Ext. P1 proceedings dated 31.12.1999. The petitioners were placed at ranks lower than that of persons who were their juniors in service. The petitioners therefore, preferred Ext. P2 and P3 objections to the list. 3. They were appointed as Lower Division Clerks on 3.10.1998. A provisional Seniority list of Lower Division Clerk was published by the 1st respondent by Ext. P1 proceedings dated 31.12.1999. The petitioners were placed at ranks lower than that of persons who were their juniors in service. The petitioners therefore, preferred Ext. P2 and P3 objections to the list. 3. It is submitted that in the case of the 2nd petitioner, a communication was issued by the 1st respondent to the Principal of the School, where she was working, stating that the internal selection as recommended by the Screening Committee for appointment as 'Office Assistant' was placed before the Executive Committee which, after scrutiny of the list ordered that the selection of the candidates should be based on performance evaluation report, seniority and giving weightage for graduates over non-graduates. It was further stated that the petitioner's performance evaluation report was average and therefore, she was placed last in the list. It is stated that her objection raised is therefore, without merits. 4. On being informed of the said communication by the Principal, the 2nd petitioner had preferred Ext. P8 before the Director of the 1st respondent on 20.11.2002 which is still pending. The 1st petitioner's objection to Ext.P1 list as evidenced by Ext.P2 is also pending before the Director. It is submitted that no steps were taken to finalise Ext.P1 seniority list. However, on the basis of the ranking in Ext. P1, Ext.P4 orders of further promotion were issued on 23.10.2001. The petitioners preferred Ext.P5 and P6 objections to the same as well. 5. It is submitted that thereafter, in Ext.P10 promotion list to the post of Head-Clerks also, the petitioners were placed below their juniors. Ext.P11 representation was preferred against the same. It is submitted that Ext.P12 letter was again issued by the Director to the Principal of the School, where the 2nd petitioner was working, stating that promotions are granted to each post in the 1st respondent by a Selection Committee constituted for the purpose and performance of all internal candidates is evaluated before making recommendations for appointment. 6. It is submitted that Ext. P13 circular was issued calling for applications for appointment to the post of Junior Superintendent. The petitioners applied and Ext.P14 proceedings were issued on 19.4.2008, appending a list in which the petitioners were included as serial Nos. 29 and 30. 6. It is submitted that Ext. P13 circular was issued calling for applications for appointment to the post of Junior Superintendent. The petitioners applied and Ext.P14 proceedings were issued on 19.4.2008, appending a list in which the petitioners were included as serial Nos. 29 and 30. The petitioners objected to Ext.P14 list, specifically pointing out that serial Nos. 20 to 28 in the said list did not have the requisite qualification. No reply was forthcoming for the said objection. 7. While so, another circular was issued on 11.01.2010 pursuant to which, Ext.P18 list was again issued in which the petitioners figured as serial Nos. 11 and 12. Exts. P19 and P20 objections were preferred against the said list stating that the juniors are still being retained at higher ranks in the said list. By Ext.P21, the Director has issued proceedings finalising the final seniority list of Head Clerks/Senior Assistant disregarding the objections filed by the petitioners and other persons. Pursuant thereto, Ext.P22 proceedings have been issued promoting 20 persons as Junior Superintendent from Ext. P14 list. 8. Thereafter, by proceedings dated 5.6.2010, 9 persons including 8 juniors of the petitioners, who have been arrayed in this writ petition as respondents 2 to 12 were promoted. 9. Ext.P23 communication was issued by the Director stating that the objection raised by the 2nd petitioner regarding the provisional seniority list of Head Clerks has been examined and it is stated that the seniority for the posts of Junior Superintendent has been fixed taking into account, the seniority in the feeder category post of Head Clerk. It is further stated that those who have been selected on an earlier occasion are entitled to be ranked senior to those selected later and therefore, the petitioners claim cannot be considered. 10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent as well as the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents. 11. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the petitioners were entitled to be assigned proper seniority in the seniority list of Lower Division Clerks. 10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent as well as the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents. 11. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the petitioners were entitled to be assigned proper seniority in the seniority list of Lower Division Clerks. It is contended that the reason stated for denying the due seniority to the petitioners in the category of Lower Division Clerks is that the eligibility and ranking was revised after the date of promotion on the basis of an evaluation by the Executive committee of the 1st respondent held on 13.1.1999 and that it was decided that the ranking should be based on evaluation report (confidential report), seniority and giving weightage for graduates over non-graduates. It is stated that the committee had resolved to ratify the appointment of the candidates from the list prepared by the Staff Selection Commission on the condition that the rank list should be modified on the basis of norms fixed as above. 12. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the alleged "poor" performance report given to the 2nd petitioner and the report of whatever nature, which is relied on as against 1st petitioner were never communicated to them. It is further contended that a perusal of Ext.R1 (a), promotion list along with Annexure-1 thereto, would clearly show that the 1st petitioner's performance appraisal was good and that of the 2nd petitioner was average. However, in Ext. R1 (b) list, the 2nd petitioner is ranked higher than the 1st petitioner. 13. It is submitted that the revision of their seniority to their detriment as has been done in Ext. P1 seniority list, without communicating any adverse remarks as against them was clearly detrimental to the interest of the petitioners and cannot be sustained. This has been objected to, by the petitioners by preferring Exts. P2 and P3 representations. The petitioners have clearly pointed out in Ext. P3 as well as in Ext. P8 representation preferred before the Director that there is no provision in the Special Rules for superseding non-graduates employees who were exempted in terms of Special Rules by graduates as has been done by the Executive Committee. They had therefore raised valid objections to Ext. P1 seniority list. 15. P3 as well as in Ext. P8 representation preferred before the Director that there is no provision in the Special Rules for superseding non-graduates employees who were exempted in terms of Special Rules by graduates as has been done by the Executive Committee. They had therefore raised valid objections to Ext. P1 seniority list. 15. It is evident from the contentions raised as well as the documents produced in this case, that Ext.P1 provisional seniority list of Lower Division Clerks was never finalised. It is also clear that further promotions have been made relying on the seniority as contained in the provisional list of Lower Division Clerks. This was again objected to, by the petitioners by Exts. P5 and P6 objections and thereafter by Ext.P11 representation in the case of promotion to the post of Head Clerk. The seniority list in the lower categories of LD Clerks, Office Assistants and Head Clerks have not been finalised so far. 15. In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the finalisation of the seniority list prepared for appointment to the post of Junior Superintendents by Ext. P21 proceedings and the further promotions on the basis of the same are irregular in view of the fact that the seniority in the category of Lower Division Clerks still remains under objection at the instance of the petitioners. 16. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the seniority of Lower Division Clerks in Ext.P1 was determined on the basis of evaluation conducted by the Executive Committee by Ext. R1 (d), Minutes of the meeting held on 13.01.1999. Ext. R1 (b) Service Rules, which were in force at the relevant time provides for selection to each posts by a Selection Committee constituted for the purpose. The Committee was to consider the performance of the internal candidates before making recommendations for appointment. The contentions now raised are that, the Executive Committee which met after the order of appointment of the petitioners and the contesting respondents as Lower Division Clerks, decided that the norms for selection should be revoked and had thereafter directed the review of the order of appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk. The norms which have been stated in the Minutes of the Executive Committee find no place in the Special Rules. The norms which have been stated in the Minutes of the Executive Committee find no place in the Special Rules. No orders revising the order of appointment of Lower Division Clerks had not issued by the respondent on the basis of Ext. R1-(d) decision of the Executive Committee. Further, it is seen that the adverse entries alleged against the petitioners were never communicated to them. 17. In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the objections raised by the petitioners to Ext. P1 seniority list which are valid and have to be considered by the 1st respondent is strictly in the light of the Special Rules as they stood as on the date of the promotion of the petitioners as Lower Division Clerks. The further promotions to the post of Office Assistants/Head Clerks and Junior Superintendents would also therefore have to be reviewed on the basis of orders to be passed on the representations preferred by the petitioners as against Ext. P1 seniority list. 18. During the pendency of this Writ Petition, by an interim order dated 25.02.2015 in I.A. No. 2665 of 2015, this Court had issued a stay of operation of all further proceedings pursuant to Ext. P25 notification for appointment to the post of Senior Superintendent. 19. In the above view of the matter, this Writ Petition is disposed off as under: (i) The 1st respondent shall take up, consider and pass orders on Exts. P2 and P3 objections preferred by the petitioners against Ext. P1 seniority list untrammelled by anything stated in Exts. P7 and P12, strictly in accordance with the Special Rules, which were in force as on the date of appointment of the petitioners as Lower Division Clerks. (ii) This shall be done with the notice to the petitioners and any other affected parties within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. (iii) It is made clear that uncommunicated adverse remarks in the confidential roll of the petitioners shall not be relied upon as a ground for denying them seniority in the category of Lower Division Clerk. (iv) The consideration of the objections of the petitioners shall be on the basis of the Special Rules governing the post. After orders are issued on the objections of the petitioners, the 1st respondent shall carry out necessary corrections or modifications in Ext. (iv) The consideration of the objections of the petitioners shall be on the basis of the Special Rules governing the post. After orders are issued on the objections of the petitioners, the 1st respondent shall carry out necessary corrections or modifications in Ext. P1 as also the further orders of promotion to the posts of Senior Office Assistant, Head Clerk and Junior Superintendent. (v) The interim order of stay of Ext. P25 proceedings granted by this Court shall remain in force till orders are passed as directed above by the 1st respondent. This Writ Petition is disposed off accordingly.