2025:CGHC:19790 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 574 of 2013 Reserved on : 19.02.2025 Delivered on : 01.0 5 .2025 1. Srinivas Rao Naidu S/o Shri KSR Naidu, Aged About 44 Years presently posted as Section Officer, High Court of Chhattisgarh Bodri, Thana Chakarbhata Post High Court District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Tijau Ram Hirwani, S/o Late R.D. Hirwani, Aged About 43 Years, R/o MIG- 1/227, New Housing Board Colony Dewrikhurd, Bilaspur Post and P.S. Torwa, Tahsil and District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. Jitendra Shanker Padhye, S/o Late Shri Shanker Ganesh Padhye, Aged About 44 Years presently posted as Section Officer (Officiating), High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bodri, Thana Chakarbhata, Post Office High Court, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ---- Petitioners Versus 1. High Court of Chhattisgarh Through The Registrar General High Court of Chhattisgarh Bodri P.S. Chakarbhata, Post Office High Court District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Ashok Dewangan, Section Officer, High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. Ramayan Dewangan, Section Officer, High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. Arun Kumar Potdar, Section Officer, High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Sajal Kumar Gupta, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1/ High Court : Mr. R.S. Marhas along with Mr. Samarth Singh Marhas, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Narendra Kumar Vyas, J. CAV ORDER 1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging the order ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Date: 2025.05.01 15:16:49 +0530 dated 04.02.2013 (Annexure P/1) by which respondents No. 2 to 4 have been promoted to the post of Assistant Grade-I w.e.f. 28.12.2004 and by the same order, they have been promoted as Section Officer notionally w.e.f. 29.09.2005. The petitioners have assailed letter dated 10.10.2012 (Annexure P/2) issued by respondent No. 1 by which representation preferred by the petitioners has been rejected and also assailed order dated 28.04.2004 (Annexure P/3) by which services of respondents No. 2 to 4 have been absorbed in the High Court establishment on the post of Assistant Grade-II w.e.f. 06.11.2003. 2. The brief facts as reflected from records are that: (A) The petitioners were appointed as Assistant Grade-III in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the year 1987/1995 and pursuant to reorganization of State of Madhya Pradesh as State of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh, the petitioners were allocated to the High Court of Chhattisgarh. On 24.05.2001, the petitioners were promoted on the post of Assistant Grade-II, subsequently, on 24/28.12.2004, promoted on the post of Assistant Grade-I and on 11/15.02.2005, promoted on the post of Section Officers. (B) It is also case of the petitioners that respondents No. 2 to 4 were not appointed in the High Court establishment directly but they were initially appointed on the post of Assistant Grade-II in the District and Sessions Court establishment and after formation of High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, they were appointed on deputation in the High Court establishment on the post of Assistant Grade-II. Respondents No. 2 to 4 submitted representation for their absorption in the High Court establishment on the post of Assistant Grade-II and accordingly, they were absorbed on the post of Assistant Grade-II on 28.04.2004. (C) After absorption of respondents No. 2 to 4, the High Court, published a provisional gradation list of Assistant Grade-III/II on 01.05.2004, inviting objections from the employees. Some of the employees finding that in the provisional list of Assistant Grade- III, their names were shown below the employees who were appointed in the establishment of High Court, immediately submitted their objections and prayed for fixation of their seniority from the date of their joining in the establishment of High Court and proper placement in the final gradation list in the cadre of Assistant Grade-III/II. However, the respondent High Court, ignoring the objections raised by those employees and without making any correction regarding their placement, published the final gradation list on 27.12.2004, which was challenged by them by filling Writ Petition No. 3926/2005 (Dev Sharan Dilliwar & Others versus High Court of Chhattisgarh & Others) before this Court. Relevant para of the judgment is quoted below:- “20. On the basis of the aforesaid discussions, we hold the words ".. ..subject to the condition that he will be given seniority, from the date he has been holding the post on deputation or the date from which he has been appointed on a regular basis to the same or equivalent grade in his present department whichever is later" of clause (c) of Rule 12(2) of the Rules of 1961 are liable to be struck being absurd and non-est in the eye of law and accordingly, the same are hereby struck down. 21. The respondent No.1 is to prepare a fresh gradation list of the Assistant Grade-III counting seniority of petitioners in accordance with the existing rules, that is to say, after excluding the part of clause (c) of the Rule 12 (2) which has been struck down by this order. 22. The petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs.” (D) It has also been contended that in view of the order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, the State has amended the Rule 12 (2)(C) of the Chattisgarh Civil Services (General Condition of Service) Rules, 1961 (for short “the Rules, 1961”) which reads as under:- “12(2)(C) of the Rule, 1961 In the case of a person who is initially taken on deputation and absorbed later (i.e., where the relevant recruitment rules provide for "transfer on deputation/transfer") his seniority in the grade in which he is absorbed normally be counted from the date of absorption. If he has however been holding already (on the date da absorption) the same or equivalent grade on regular basis in his "parent department" (earlier it was present department), such regular service in the grade shall be taken into account in fixing his seniority, subject to the condition that he will be given seniority, from the date he has been holding the post on deputation or the date from which he has been appointed on a regular basis to the same or equivalent grade in his parent department "whichever is earlier" (earlier it was whichever is later).” (E) The High Court in view of order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench has revised the gradation list of AG-III and AG-II for the year 2004-2005 which was published on 18.10.2012 and the petitioners have been placed below the private respondents. Being aggrieved with this gradation list placing them below private respondents, the petitioners have preferred representation on 18.07.2012 before the High Court mainly contending that the respondents were working in the District Court Establishment and since 2001 they have been working on deputation in High Court, as such they cannot claim seniority from their initial appointment. The representation preferred by the petitioners has been rejected vide order dated 10.10.2012 (Annexure P/2). Thereafter, the High Court has promoted the respondents No. 2 to 4 on the post of Assistant Grade-I & Section Officer notionally vide order dated 04.02.2013 (Annexure P/1). The petitioners have challenged the legality and propriety of order dated 04.02.2013 (Annexure P/2), order dated 10.10.2012 & gradation list as 01.04.2004 (Annexure P/2) published on 18.10.2012 in this petition. 3. The High Court/respondent No. 1 has filed its return mainly contending that:- (A) The petitioners have filed the instant petition in the year 2013 challenging the orders dated 28.12.2004, 29.09.2005 & 28.04.2004, as such the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the count of delay and latches (B) It has been contended that respondents No. 2 was appointed on the post of Assistant Grade-II (Upper Division Clerk) on regular basis with effect from 06.01.1995 and was confirmed on the said post on 23.02.1999. They were posted on deputation in the establishment of the High Court on 03.04.2001. Similarly, respondent No. 3 was appointed on the post of Assistant Grade II (Upper Division Clerk) on 26.6.2000 and was confirmed as such on 04.12.2002, while he was transferred on deputation to Establishment of High Court on 05.02.2001. Respondent No. 4 was appointed as Assistant Grade-II in District Establishment on 01.07.2000, confirmed on 04.12.2002 by District Judge, Bilaspur and was sent on deputation to the Establishment of High Court on 03.04.2001. Apparently, respondents No. 2 to 4 were already holding the posts of Assistant Grade-II prior to promotion of the petitioners on the said post. The petitioners are promoted to the post of AG-II on 24.5.2001, therefore they are not entitled for placement over and above respondents No. 2 to 4. (C) It has been further contended that respondents No. 2 to 4 had submitted their representation for absorption in the Registry against the posts of AG-II and consented for their absorption as per the then existing Rule 12(2)(c). In view of their consent, as per the then existing Rules, they were absorbed in the establishment of the High Court and were given bottom seniority but the Rule 12(2)(C) of the Rule, 1961 was stuck down by Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court and accordingly, the gradation list of all the employees who were working as Assistant Grade-III/II had been re-fixed and since the petitioners were promoted on the post of Assistant Grade-II much after respondents No. 2 to 4, as such the petitioners have been rightly placed below respondents No. 2 to 4 by revising the gradation list and granting notional seniority retrospectively and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost satisfaction. 5. From the submission made by the parties, the point emerged for determination by this Court is:- “Whether respondent No. 1/High Court was justified in fixing the seniority of respondents No. 2 to 4 from the date of their initial appointment on the post of Assistant Grade-II while absorbing them with the High Court in accordance with Rule 12 (2)(C) of the Rules, 1961 as amended on 07.02.2017” 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that absorption of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in the cadre of Assistant Grade - II vide order dated 28.04.2004 is absolutely misconceived and misplaced as the post of Assistant Grade-II is 100% promotional post to be filled up by way of promotion from Assistant Grade – III, therefore, the same cannot be filled up by way of direct recruitment nor by way of appointment on deputation. He would further submit that there cannot be any absorption on the said post as the said course of action is not available with respondent No. 1, therefore, the absorption of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 is bad in the eyes of law. He would further submit that respondents No. 2 to 4 were confirmed on their substantive post of Assistant Grade-II only in the month of December 2002 in their parent department i.e. District Court establishment whereas the petitioners were substantively promoted on the post of Assistant Grade-II on 24.05.2001, therefore, the petitioners would have secured a position higher in the gradation list of Assistant Grade- II and would remain to be seniors to respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in the said cadre and also to the promotional cadre for all times, therefore, respondents No. 2 to 4 cannot be placed over and above the petitioners. 7. He would further submit that respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were absorbed in the services of the High Court establishment on their own request after forgiving their seniority in their parent department, as such they cannot be permitted to claim advantage contrary to their own undertaking and contrary to their own willingness to be placed at the bottom of the seniority list of Assistant Grade-II. He would further submit that respondent No. 1 has sought to give respondent Nos. 2 to 4 promotion without even convening a review DPC for considering as to whether or not respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are fit for promotion or not. There has to be a review DPC for considering the promotion of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 on the post of Assistant Grade-I and thereafter to the post of Section Officer whereas there cannot be any automatic promotion on the said promotional posts when the criteria for promotion is merit-cum-seniority, therefore, fitness of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 will have to be considered by conducting DPC and then only they can be promoted. 8. He would further submit that the petitioners were not party before this Court in W.P. No. 3926/2005 and no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners, therefore their rights, title and interest with regard to consideration for promotion cannot be taken away by issuing a gradation list placing respondent Nos. 2 to 4 over and above the petitioners. He would further submit that order dated 19.10.2011 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 3926/2005 was only with respect to the Assistant Grade-III and cannot be made applicable as against the petitioners and to the cadre of Assistant Grade-I and Section Officers. He would further submit that respondents No. 2 to 4 were not even in the cadre of Assistant Grade-I & Section Officer, as such cannot be placed over and above the petitioners without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as it is settled legal principle that whenever a gradation list is prepared, the same is tentative in nature and the authorities are bound to invite objections on the same and it is only after the objections are being considered that the said gradation list is made final. In the instant case, neither tentative list was prepared nor objections were invited, therefore, the gradation list is wholly misconceived and absolutely arbitrary. He would further submit that petitioners’ representation was rejected vide order dated 10.10.2012 by way of a non-speaking order without mentioning any fact as to why the same was being rejected as respondent No. 1 was required to assign reasons for rejection of the said representation, therefore, non-application of mind has been applied in rejecting the representation as the same issued in a pre-determined manner without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and would pray for allowing the petition. To substantiate his submission, he would refer to the judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of R. Prabha Devi & others Vs. Government of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Personnel and Training, Administrative Reforms & others [(1988) 2 SCC 233]. 9. He would further submit that no benefit of past service can be granted to respondents No. 2 to 4 before coming in the services of Chhattisgarh High Court as the services of respondents No. 2 to 4 were governed by different enactment i.e. District Court, Establishment, Recruitment of Stenographer, Steno-Typist and AG-III Rules, 2005. There is change of employer as while discharging services in Lower Judiciary the employer of the Class-III & Class-IV employees is State Government whereas in the establishment of High Court the employer of the Class-III and Class-IV service is High Court and upon change of employer, the benefit of past service cannot be granted. He would further submit that the absorption order of respondents No. 2 to 4 dated 28.04.2024 categorically stated that the seniority will be granted w.e.f. the date of their passing examination of Hindi or English Typing and this order has attained finality and binding on all the respondents and would pray for allowing the writ petition. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1/High Court reiterated the stand taken by them in the return and would further submit that after amendment in the Rule 12(2)(C) of the Rules, 1961, the gradation list has to be revised and accordingly, as such there is no illegality on the part of the High Court and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. He would further submit that that gradation list has been revised as per direction issued by Hon’ble Division Bench and in view of the amendment in the Rule, 1961 as such, no opportunity of hearing is necessary as it has been revised in view of judicial pronouncement, thus, he would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 11. To appreciate the point to be determined by this Court, it is expedient for this Court to refer to the relevant service rules applicable upon respondents No. 2 to 4 at the time of deputation. It is pertinent to mention here at the relevant time the service condition of respondents No. 2 to 4 were governed by High Court of Chhattisgarh Officers and Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1996 (for short “the Rules, 1996”). The Part-IV of the said rules provides that in special circumstances, the transfer from among qualified Upper Division Clerk from establishment of District and Sessions Judge can be appointed in the High Court establishment. Rule 8 provides the Source and method of recruitment to certain class-III & class-II post. The said rule provides that upper division clerk can be appointed from District Court also and Rule 2(l) of the said rules defines deputation. Accordingly, respondents No. 2 to 4 were sent on deputation in the year 2001. Rule 21 of the said rules provides relaxation power of Hon’ble the Chief Justice to relax any condition or rules from its application, if exigency so required. 12. This Court has called upon the records related to calling the candidate on deputation from various District Court. From the records, it is quite vivid that the then Additional Registrar (A) vide its memo dated 17.01.2001 has requested all the District Judges to send the information regarding sending the employees on deputation to meet out the acute shortage of employees. The note-sheet further provides that due to repatriation of the employees of the High Court, the High Court is facing acute shortage of manpower to meet out the work and accordingly, willingness was sought and respondents No. 2 to 4 submitted their willingness. It is pertinent to mention here that at the time of deputation, they were working as Assistant Grade-II and they were appointed on the post of Assistant Grade-II in the District Court Establishment on 16.01.1995, 26.06.2000 & 01.07.2000 respectively whereas the petitioners were appointed directly by the High Court on the post of Assistant Grade-II on 24.05.2001. The respondents No. 2 to 4 were appointed much prior to the petitioners. Thus, they are senior and having requisite qualification for appointment on the post of Assistant Grade-II. Subsequently, the Rules, 1996 have been ceased and the Chhattisgarh High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2003 (for short “the Rules, 2003”) have been framed. Rule 22 of the Rules, 2003 provides for power of relaxation by Hon’ble the Chief Justice which reads as under:- “22. Power to relax - (i) Nothing in these Rules shall be construed to limit or abridge and powers of the Chief Justice to deal with Employees of the establishment in such manner as may appear to him to be just and reasonable. (ii) Where the Chief Justice is satisfied that the operation of any of these rules causes undue hardship in any particular case, he may be order dispense with or relax the particular rule to such extent and subject to such exceptions and conditions as he may deem necessary. Provided that where any Rule is applicable to any Employee of the Establishment, his case shall not be dealt with in any the manner less favourable to him than that provided by the said Rules.” 13. Respondents No. 2 to 4 have been working since 2001 with the High Court on the post of Assistant Grade-II and they were absorbed on 28.04.2004. After the absorption, their seniority was fixed in light of Rule 12(2)(C) as is exists prior to amendment and the same was subject matter was challenged before this Court and subsequently, the State has amended the rules which reads as under:- “12(2)(C) of the Rule, 1961 In the case of a person who is initially taken on deputation and absorbed later (i.e., where the relevant recruitment rules provide for "transfer on deputation/transfer") his seniority in the grade in which he is absorbed normally be counted from the date of absorption. If he has however been holding already (on the date da absorption) the same or equivalent grade on regular basis in his "parent department" (earlier it was present department), such regular service in the grade shall be taken into account in fixing his seniority, subject to the condition that he will be given seniority, from the date he has been holding the post on deputation or the date from which he has been appointed on a regular basis to the same or equivalent grade in his parent department "whichever is earlier" (earlier it was whichever is later).” 14. Accordingly, the seniority of respondents No. 2 to 4 has been fixed by the High Court w.e.f. 28.12.2004 & 29.09.2005 on the post of Assistant Grade-I & Section Officer respectively. It is pertinent to mention here that the respondents No. 2 to 4 were absorbed on 28.04.2004 and the Rules, 2003 provides that the post of Assistant Grade-I shall be filled up by the establishment strictly on merit-cum-seniority basis and there is no minimum qualifying service has been prescribed in the Rules. The Schedule-V of the Rules, 2003 provides that for promotion on the post of Assistant Grade-I, the candidate should hold the post of Assistant Grade-II in the establishment. Thus, respondents No. 2 to 4 were considered for promotion on the post of Assistant Grade-I on 28.12.2004. The resolution of Minutes of Meeting held on 04.02.2013 reads as under:- “Subject No. 9 : To consider to fill-up the various posts lying vacant on the establishment of this High Court by promotion. Resolution: Considered as per revised gradation list and ACRs and resolved as under: I. xxx xxx xxx II. Committee further considered for promotion to 25 vacant posts of Section Officer. After perusal of ACRs following Assistant Grade-I are found fit for promotion to the post of Section Officer. Accordingly recommended for promotion of following A.G.-I to the post of Section Officer. 1. Shri Ashok Kumar Dewangan, 2. Shri Ramayan Prasad Dewangan, 3. Shri Arun Kumar Potdar, 4. Shri L.K. Pathak, 5. Shri Sanjay Shrivastava, 6. Ku. Vanita Agarwal, 7. Smt. Ruchi Sonkar, 8. Shri K. Satya Prakash, 9. Shri S.R. Mahale, 10. Shri Vikas Mandal, 11. Shri Dinesh Chandra Bawankar, 12. Shri Kishan Kumar Verma, 13. Shri S.N. Chowkikar, 14. Shri Prashant Bhatt, 15. Saraswati Kashyap, 16. Shri Pradeep Kumar Dongre, 17. Shri Santosh Kumar Ghole, 18. Shri Yogendra Shrivastava, 19. Shri Umesh Kumar Rajak, 20. Shri Mohan Mehar, 21. Shri Fanendra Kumar Bisen, 22. Shri Girdhari Ram Janghel & 23. Shri Ravindra Singh Negi, on officiating capacity for a period of two years from the date of their assuming charge of duties. 1. Shri Ashok Kumar Dewangan, 2. Shri Ramayan Prasad Dewangan and 3. Shri Arun Kumar Potdar be promoted to the post of A.G.-I and Section Officer notionally with the principle of “No work No pay”, w.e.f. 28.12.2004 & 29.09.2005 respectively i.e. the date when their juniors i.e. Shri Ramakant Banjari and others were promoted to the post of A.G.-I in the year 2004 & Section in the year 2005. Further, they be promoted to the post of Section Officer on regular basis w.e.f. the date they assume the charge of their duties to the post of Section Officer on the establishment of this High Court. They be kept above Shri Ramakant Banjari in the cadre of Section.” 15. Similarly, at the relevant time for promotion on the post of Section Officer, Schedule-IV of the Rules, 2003 provides for promotion strictly based on merit-cum-seniority from amongst Assistant Grade-I, Translators, Stamp Reporters and Examiner (ILR) of the establishment. Respondents No. 2 to 4 were notionally promoted on the post of Assistant Grade-I on 28.12.2004 and they found placed in gradation list of Assistant Grade-I, they have been promoted on the post of Section Officer w.e.f. 29.09.2005 vide order dated 04.02.2013. Thus, it is quite vivid that the promotion of respondents No. 2 to 4 has been done strictly in accordance with the Rules, 2003 applicable to the establishment. Thus, it is held that the High Court was justified in absorbing respondents No. 2 to 4 with the High Court establishment and granting notional promotion to the post of Assistant Grade-I & Section Officers on 28.12.2004 & 29.09.2005 respectively. The action of the respondent No. 1 in granting seniority to respondents No. 2 to 4 is in accordance with the law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Geetha V.M. & others Vs. Rethnasenan K. & others {2005 INSC 33} wherein Hon’ble the Supreme Court has considered concept of absorption, its effect when the deputation is not on the request of the employees but as a policy decision and has held in paragraphs 40 to 45, 47 & 50 as under:- “40. Here, it is a case of transfer by way of absorption. Now, to deal with the meaning of absorption, we can profitably refer to the different glossaries. As per P. Ramanatha Aiyar’s Advanced Law Lexicon, 7th Edition, ‘absorption’ means ‘to take in. On absorption, the employee becomes part and parcel of the department absorbing him and partakes the same colour and character of the existing employees of the department.’ 41. In Corpus Juris Secundum (CJS), ‘absorb’ is defined as ‘to suck up; to drink in, to imbibe; to draw in as a constituent part; and it has been said to be also a synonym of “consume”. 42. On perusal of the above, it is clear that if transfer is by absorption, then such employee becomes part and parcel of the department absorbing him and partakes the same colour and character of the existing employees. In other words, absorb clearly indicates to suck up, to imbibe to draw as a constituent part and consume. 43. In addition, the words option and request have different meanings which require further emphasis. In colloquial usage, Merriam-Webster defines ‘option’ as – ‘an act of choosing; the power or right to choose: freedom of choice; something that may be chosen’, whereas, ‘request’ is defined as – ‘by asking for something, usually in a formal way’. Page 17 of 18 44. In legal usage, Black’s Law Dictionary defines ‘option’ as – ‘right or power to choose; something that may be chosen’. On the other hand, it defines ‘request’ as – ‘an asking or petition; the expression of a desire to some person for something to be granted or done’. 45. In P. Ramanatha Aiyar’s Advanced Law Lexicon, 7th Edition, ‘option’ is defined as – ‘simply choice or freedom of choice. The essential requisites of an option or election is that a party opting should be cognizant of his right. The party must have the knowledge of his or her right and of those circumstances which will influence the exercise of option. The person to whom an option is given in regard to any matter must be left to his own free will to take or do one thing or another.’ and ‘request’ is defined as ‘a demand or requirement’. XXX XXX XXX 47. In the present case, the transfer has been made by way of absorption on the basis of option and not on the basis of request. The said absorption was in furtherance to a policy decision of the Government to abolish the dual control system enhancing the efficiency of the administration of medical colleges and attached hospitals thereto giving it to DME withdrawing from DHS. Therefore, the transfer by way of absorption on exercise of option as specified in Appendix I and Appendix II contained in G.O. dated 25.10.2008 does not attract the proviso to Rule 27(a) of KS&SS Rules, which only deals with the transfer on request or on mutual request. Thus, the action taken in public interest due to administrative exigency even on option is different than the action done on request. In our view, the proviso to Rule 27(a) does not attract in case of a transfer by way of absorption done by the Department in furtherance to the policy decision of the Government. Therefore, transfer by way of absorption in public interest cannot be equated with the transfer on request in contingencies as specified in proviso to Rule 27(a) or applied mutually. XXX XXX XXX 50. The Court with said observations concluded that if the request is made for transfer by an employee and accepted by the authority, then on joining the transferred post, seniority be counted from the date of his joining at new place foregoing the previous service and advantage of clause (c) of Rule 27 is not available to such employee. The said judgment is of no help to private respondents – original employees since the transfer in the present case is in the administrative exigencies by way of absorption. As discussed above, the absorption based on option is completely different than the transfer on request and the said judgment rather fortifies the discussions made above and favours the case of the absorbed employees.” 16. Considering the position of law and facts of the case, it is quite vivid that the petitioners are juniors to respondents No. 2 to 4 and respondents No. 2 to 4 were absorbed with the High Court on 28.04.2004 and in view of the fact that respondents No. 2 to 4 were on deputation on 03.04.2001, 05.02.2001 & 03.04.2001, they have been rightly granted seniority over the petitioners as the petitioners were initially appointed on 24.05.2001 which is subsequent to appointment of respondents No. 2 to 4. Accordingly, the point determined by this Court is answered in favour of respondents No. 2 to 4 and against the petitioners. 17. It is pertinent to mention here that since the gradation list has been amended in view of amendment in the rules and the order of the Hon’ble Division Bench, no individual was required to be served with the notice or grant of opportunity of hearing. As such, the submission made by the petitioners that they have not been granted opportunity of hearing also deserves to be rejected. Consequently, the impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality or irregularity which warrant interference by this Court. 18. The writ petition being devoid of merit deserves to be and accordingly, it is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Arun