JUDGMENT : R. Devdas, J. 1. The petitioner was appointed to the first respondent-Board with effect from 19/4/1982. His services stood confirmed as Meter Reader with effect from 1/1/1985. The petitioner was promoted as Water Inspector with effect from 18/6/2004. The petitioner was also deputed to foreign countries to study the new water management concept during the year 2008. During the year 2010, the Board granted promotion to the employees working in the ministerial cadre to the post of Junior Engineers. Prior to the promotions to the 16 vacant posts of Junior Engineers, a seniority list of 19 eligible employees who were holding Diploma Certificates and who were working in Group 'C' feeder cadre was prepared. The seniority list of 19 eligible candidates is said to have been prepared in terms of Rule 16(f)(ii) of the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (Cadre Recruitment and Promotion) Regulations, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations for short). 2. The petitioner was placed at Sl.No. 1 in the seniority list. However, the case of the petitioner was not considered for promotion during the year 2010 as there was a departmental enquiry pending against the petitioner. However, the promotion of the petitioner was considered and kept in a sealed cover. Promotion was granted to the other persons who were below the petitioner in the seniority list. Thereafter the departmental proceedings ended in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner was exonerated of all the charges leveled against him. Thereafter, the petitioner sought for promotion by opening the sealed cover. The respondent-Board opened the sealed cover and granted promotion to the petitioner to the post of Junior Engineer, with retrospective effect from 7/9/2010, the date on which the other employees who were junior to the petitioner were promoted to the post of Junior Engineer. Thereafter, a draft seniority list of Junior Engineers was prepared and objections were called for. As per the draft seniority list, the petitioner was placed way below his juniors and therefore, the petitioner brought to the notice of the respondent-Board the seniority of the petitioner in terms of the seniority list prepared in the year 2010. Nevertheless, the final seniority list was issued vide notification dtd. 3/3/2015. The petitioner was placed at Sl.No. 13 and all the other Junior Engineers who were junior to the petitioner, including respondents No. 3 to 12 were placed above the petitioner. Nevertheless, the final seniority list was issued vide notification dtd. 3/3/2015. The petitioner was placed at Sl.No. 13 and all the other Junior Engineers who were junior to the petitioner, including respondents No. 3 to 12 were placed above the petitioner. The petitioner gave one more representation requesting the Board to reconsider the placement of the petitioner in the seniority list at Sl.No. 3, immediately after Sri Devaraj, who was at Sl.No. 2. The third respondent Sri H.T.Krishnegowda is at Sl.No. 3 and according to the petitioner, the third respondent entered into the service of the respondent-Board in the year 2003, while the petitioner entered the services of the respondentBoard in the year 1985 and therefore, the petitioner is much senior to respondent No. 3 and all other respondents. The Board cancelled the final seniority list dtd. 3/3/2015 and issued one more notification dtd. 5/3/2015. However, even in the rectified seniority list vide notification dtd. 5/3/2015, the petitioner continues at Sl.No. 13 and respondent No. 3 is at Sl.No. 3 followed by all the other respondents. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 16 (f)(ii) of the Regulations of the Board, the length of service of all the employees in the cadre is required to be considered. Even in terms of the memorandum dtd. 18/11/2013 at Annexure 'G' issued by the Chief Administrative Officer and Secretary of the respondent-Board, it is clear that having regard to the Regulations 16(f)(iii), taking into consideration the length of service put by the employee in the cadre, it has been clarified that the petitioner is the senior most and therefore, it was recommended that his name should be at Sl.No. 1. Learned Counsel would further submit that no reasons are assigned for rejection of the representation given by the petitioner. 4. The learned Counsel for the respondent-Board, however, seeks to support the impugned Seniority list. 5. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that although respondent No. 3 entered the services of the respondent-Board in the year 2003, nevertheless he was earlier working with Mysore Lamps and he was absorbed into the services of the respondent-Board in the year 2003. Therefore, the learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that due regard should be had to the services rendered by respondent No. 3 before he was absorbed into the services of the respondent-Board. 6. Therefore, the learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that due regard should be had to the services rendered by respondent No. 3 before he was absorbed into the services of the respondent-Board. 6. Having heard the learned Counsels and on perusing the petition papers, this Court finds that there is absolutely no justification for non-consideration of the claim of the petitioner for assigning the seniority of the petitioner. It is clear from the material available on record that the petitioner was at Sl.No. 1 in the seniority list prepared in the year 2010 before the employees were considered from the feeder cadre to be promoted as Junior Engineers. Even in the Official Memorandum dtd. 18/11/2013 at Annexure 'G', where the petitioner was considered for promotion consequent to he being exonerated in the departmental enquiry, in terms of the regulations of the respondent-Board the petitioner was granted promoted from 7/9/2010, which was the date when respondents No. 3 and 12 were granted promotion. The pay scale was also accordingly granted to the petitioner. That being the position, there can be no reason why the petitioner was not given due position in the seniority list. 7. Consequently, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER: 1. The Writ petition is allowed. 2. The impugned notification dtd. 5/3/2015 is directed to be reconsidered by the first respondent-Board having regard to the observations made hereinabove. 3. Fresh notification shall be issued after considering the claim of the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Ordered accordingly.