JUDGMENT V.M. Sahai, J.
1. Heard counsel for the petitioner and standing counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner is claiming that Junior to the petitioner Shri Prem Shankar Upadhyaya has been regularised by the respondents. therefore, he, being at 51. No. 3 in the seniority list which has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition is entitled for regularisatton. Shri Prem Shankar Upadhyaya filed Writ Petition No. 260 of 1991 which was disposed of by this Court on 21.5.1993 on the ground that in case juniors to Shri Prem Shankar Upadhyaya had been regularised, in that case his claim for regularisation should also be considered. In view of the Judgment of this Court dated 21.5.1993, the respondents have regularised the service of Shri Prem Shankar Upadhyaya accepting the seniority list on 17.8.1996 which has been filed as Annexure-2A to the writ petition. The claim of the regularisation of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondents by order dated 20.11.1996 which has been filed as Annexure-8 to the writ petition on the ground that it is not possible to regularise the services of the petitioner as services of Shri Prem Shankar Upadhyaya wwre regularised in pursuance of the judgment given in Writ Petition No. 260 of 1991.
3. The facts stated by the petitioner in paragraph 3 of the writ petition clearly mention that his name is at 51. No. 3 in the seniority list whereas Shri Prem Shankar Upadhyaya's name is at Sl. No. 8 of the seniority list. In paragraph 5 of the counter-affidavit, it has been stated by the respondents that the list was circulated in the division inviting objections to the seniority list, but the respondents have not filed any other seniority list. The petitioner, on the other hand, has clearly stated that no seniority list other than Annexure-1 to the writ petition was prepared. It is thus clear that Shri Prem Shankar Upadhyaya who was junior to petitioner has been regularised. The petitioner being senior to him is entitled to be regularised. The reason given by the respondent cannot be accepted as this Court while directing the respondents to consider regularisation of Shri Upadhyaya if junior to him have been regularised did not say that senior to him should not be regularised. The respondent having regularised Sri Upadhyaya who was junior to the petitioner, the respondents cannot, ignore the claim of a senior person while discharging their duty of regularisation. Since the petitioner has been found senior to Shri Upadhyaya, he is also entitled to be regularised.
4. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed by the impugned order dated 20.11.1996 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) passed by respondents is quashed. The respondents are directed to regularise the service of the petitioner from the date on which his Junior Shri Prem Shankar Upadhyaya has been regularised and he shall be given his due seniority. The petitioner shall not be entitled for any arrears of salary. However, he shall be entitled for current salary. The necessary orders in this regard shall be passed by respondents within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before them.
5. There shall be no order as to, costs.