Nirmaljit Kaur, J.@mdashThis order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 6728 of 2007, 20253 of 2008, 7504 of 2009, 6729 of 2007 and 6666 of 2007 as the impugned order in all the five writ petitions is common. The facts are derived from Civil Writ Petition No. 6728 of 2007.
2. On 22-03-1991, the Ministry of Urban Development (Works Division) issued letter No. 12012/2/1987 providing that there would be two scales of pay for Junior Engineers in CPWD i.e. 1400-2300 and 1640-2900. The entry grade for Junior Engineer was prescribed as 1400-2300 and on completion of 5 years of service in entry grade, the Junior Engineer was directed to be placed in the pay scale of 1640-2900. In the abovesaid letter, it was further provided that on completion of total service of 15 years, the Junior Engineers, in case of their being not promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer, would be entitled to the pay scale of 2000-3500. Thus, in the letter dated 22-03-1991, the provision of promotion and up gradation was in built.
3. In the year 1994, the incumbents of the post of Superintendent Grade I and Grade II of MES, filed OA No. 1337/94, 1375/94, 1338/94, 1376-82/94 and in the year 1995, they filed O.A. No. 1079-1086/95 and OA No. 1389-1393/95 before the Bangalore Bench of Tribunal seeking a direction against respondents No. 1 to 3 that they should be granted the same benefit as was granted to Junior Engineer in CPWD. On 01-03-1995, in OA Nos. 1337 & 1364 to 1375 of 1994 of Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal directed that the Superintendent Grade II in MES should be granted the same benefit as was granted to JEs in CPWD. In terms of the judgment of Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal, the Superintendents Grade II were to get the pay scale of 1640-2900 (5500-9000) on completion of 5 years service and the pay scale of 2000-3500 (6500-10,500) on completion of total 15 years of service in such situation where they could, in fact, be not promoted as Assistant Engineer.
4. Thus, after the aforementioned judgment of Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal, post of Superintendent Grade-I became redundant in all respect and the post of Superintendent Grade II/Grade I had virtually become redundant. The Ministry of Defence issued letter dated 25-04-1996, conveying the sanction of the President for grant of higher pay scale to the provision of two scales of pay for Superintendent (BR/EM)/ Surveyor Assistant Grade i.e. 1400-2300. The pay scale of 1400-2300 was entry grade and the pay scale of 1640-2900 was admissible on completion of 5 years of service. The Superintendent (BR/EM), Surveyor Assistant in case of their non-promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer/Junior Surveyor of works in the scale of Rs. 2000-3500, due to non-availability of vacancies in the grade of Assistant Engineers/Junior Surveyor or Works were to be allowed the scale of Assistant Engineers/Junior Surveyors of Works i.e. 2000-3500 on personal basis after completion of 15 years of total service as Superintendent (BR/EM)/Surveyor Assistant.
5. Thus, in terms of the judgment of Bangalore Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal and also in terms of the letter dated 25-04-1996 issued implementing the said judgment, the existence of two grades i.e. Superintendent Grade I and Superintendent Grade II came to an end and only one grade i.e. Superintendent remained in existence. The Superintendents were at par with Junior Engineers. Further the next promotion from the post of Superintendent was kept to the post of Assistant Engineer and in case of non-promotion of incumbent to such post within 15 years, he was entitled to be granted the pay scale of the post i.e. 2000-3500 and on availability of the vacancy, he was entitled to be adjusted against the same.
6. The DOP&T issued OM dated 10-02-1997, providing therein that as the Government has received the recommendation of 5th CPC and the same were under examination, the Government had decided to impose a temporary ban on framing/amendment/relaxation/medication of Recruitment Rules/service rules in respect of Group A, B, C & D posts/service/cadre till necessary order to such effect could be issued by the Government. Thus, although practically and legally in terms of judgment of the Tribunal, uphold by Hon''ble the Apex Court, the distinction and difference between Superintendent Grade I and Superintendent Grade II stood eliminated but due to ban, the statutory rules could not be brought into force.
7. On 09-07-1999, the Government of India re-designated the posts of Superintendent B&R Grade I & II as Junior Engineer with pay scale of 1400-2300 to be upgraded to 1640-2900 after 5 years. Accordingly, the petitioners issued letter dated 02-08-1999 (Annexure P-5B) providing therein that Junior Engineers would perform duties of Superintendent Grade I. From 09-07-1999, all Superintendent Grade I and Grade II were treated/re-designated as JE and JEs were treated as substitute of Superintendent Grade I for the purpose of performance of duty.
8. On 30-04-2001, in exercise of the powers conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, in super session of MES Superintendents (B&R) Grade I & II RR and MES (E&M) Grade I & II Recruitment Rules 1983, the President of India made the Recruitment Rules relating to method of Recruitment Rules to the aforementioned posts. In clause I of the Recruitment Rules, it was clearly provided that the erstwhile Superintendent Grade I and II (B&R and E&M) had been re-designated as JE(Civil) and JE (E&M) w.e.f. 09-07-1999.
9. It is relevant to note that although, the difference between Superintendent Grade I and II stood eliminated with the implementation of the judgment of Tribunal of Bangalore Bench, the petitioners continued to make appointment to Superintendent Grade I on re-employment basis during the period from 1996-99.
10. On 04-07-2005, raising the plea that when difference between Superintendent Grade I & II had been eliminated w.e.f. 01-01-1996, there should have been no appointment as Superintendent Grade I and questioning the seniority of those incumbents, who were appointed as Superintendent Grade I after elimination of difference between Superintendent Grade I and II (respondents No. 6 to 30 of OA), the respondents No. 1 to 5 filed OA No. 644/PB/2005 before the Chandigarh Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal.
11. In the meantime, an OA No. 680/2004 had been filed before Ernakulam Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal. In the said application, certain JEs (Civil) had challenged the All India Seniority List of JE (Civil) issued vide letter dated 29-07-2004. The said OA was disposed of by the Tribunal vide order dated 07-09-2005 (Annexure P-7A) with a direction that a time limit should be fixed for making representation against the said seniority list and before finalization of the seniority list, the representations received against the same should be disposed of.
12. The OA No. 644/PB/2005, mentioned above, as well as, other OA Nos. 296-PB of 2005 and OA No. 472-CH of 2005 were disposed of by the Chandigarh Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal, vide common order dated 06-07-2006. The review application in OA No. 644/PB/2005 was also dismissed vide order dated 25-01-2007. The said OAs were disposed of with the following directions:
13. On the question whether new rules can be given retrospective operation, the Court held that there was no such provision made. It was further held that the valid rules made under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution operate so long as the said rules are not repealed or replaced. Draft rules cannot form a basis for grant of promotions when rules to the contrary are holding the field. In the present case also, even though there is not a notification but only an administrative decision for merger of two categories, circulated in July 1989, and the Recruitment Rules have been notified vide Annexure A-1 only on 30-04-2001, till date of these rules, promotions, if any, were to be considered under earlier set of rules. We recognize that applicants and similarly placed other persons have a valid grievance that from 1995-96 onwards, no person from the category of Superintendent Grade II has either considered or promoted to Grade I. This has resulted in double loss to them as they have been denied their promotion to Grade I and they cannot be considered as Grade I till notification of rules at Annexure A-1. Even though, such a case is not before us, but we put on record that it will be desirable that the respondents consider holding of DPCs in accordance with the rules and the law for considering persons who were Superintendents Grade II and grant them promotions with retrospective dates from the date such a promotion would have become due to them considering their seniority and availability of vacancies of Grade I from time to time, up to April 2001. That would also held them in refixation of their seniority after their placement in Grade I.
14. Aggrieved with the above said order of the Chandigarh Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal, the writ petitions bearing Nos. 6666, 6728 and 6729 of 2007 have been filed by the Union of India, whereas, CWP No. 20253 of 2008 has been filed by Tek Chand, petitioner No. 3 in OA No. 644/PB/2005 being a degree holder. The Union of India has challenged the order dated 06-07-2006 passed in OA No. 644/PB/2005 as well as the order dated 25-01-2007 passed in the Review Application No. 53/2006. Another, CWP No. 7504 of 2009 was filed directly to the Court by a degree holder.
15. During the course of arguments before this Court, Civil Misc. No. 9087 of 2009 was moved in Civil Writ Petition No. 6728 of 2007 for placing on record the Letter No. B/46200/187/E-1Legal(O) dated 02-03-2009, issued by the Director General (Personnel) Engineer-in-Chief Branch, Kashmir House, New Delhi as Annexure A-1. Sh. Anupinder Singh Grewal, Central Government Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners-Union of India also placed on record a communication dated 21-05-2009, addressed to him by D.C. Japlot, EE, Joint Director (Personnel & Legal) for Chief Engineer dispatching the instructions dated 02-03-2009, already placed on record, duly clarifying the stand of Union of India in the subject case. Through these instructions, the Union of India admitted that due to non-promotion of Grade II to Grade I for the years 1995 to 2001 and direct recruitment of Grade I during these years, in accordance with the then applicable Recruitment Rules, anomalous situation has cropped up. However, the direction of the Tribunal to hold Performa DPC from Grade II to Grade I for the years 1995 to 2001 to settle the seniority list of JEs for the year 2004-05 which is under challenge in the present Writ Petition is difficult to implement. Thus, through these instructions dated 02-03-2009 (Annexure A-1), the Union of India proposed to administratively issue promotion panels for the post of Grade I for the year 1995 to 1999 by conducting the DPC following prevailing Recruitment Rules and submitted in para 11 of these instructions as follows:
11. The above anomaly due to non conduction of regular year wise DPC for the years 1995 to 1999 can be addressed to, if all those who were drawing pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 (Equivalent to erstwhile Grade-Is) and above are declared as Superintendent Grade-I w.e.f. 24-01-1996 (date of issue of E-in-C''s letter wiping out distinction between Grade-I and Grade-II) for both promotion and re-fixation of seniority.
16. Learned Counsel for the respondents in CWP Nos. 6666, 6728 and 6729 of 2007 accepted the said proposal made by Union of India vide these instructions placed on record as Annexure A-1. The writ petition could have been disposed of, in view of the proposal made vide instructions dated 02-03-2009 but for the objections raised by the petitioners in connected writ petitions which shall be discussed in the subsequent paragraphs of this judgment.
17. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, the judgment was reserved. Before pronouncement, the judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 03-07-2009 was brought to the notice of this Court. Accordingly, the matter was re-heard. Before the Delhi High Court, the following question was considered:
18. The question which, therefore, fell for determination before the Tribunal was as to which is the date of merger. It is to be taken of 24.06.1996 when the judgment of Bangalore Bench was implemented and on introduction thereof it was categorically clarified on that date that there would be no distinction between the Grade I and II. Or else, it is to be taken as 09.07.1999 when there was redesignation of the post of Superintendent Grade II and I that of Junior Engineer with the sanction of the President. Or the relevant date would be 30.04.2001 when the Recruitment Rules were formally amended. Obviously, the outcome of the case depends upon the answer to this controversy.
19. After considering the entire aspect, the Delhi High Court upheld the order of the Tribunal , vide which, the merger of Superintendent
20. Grade I and II had taken place on 09.07.1999. Learned Counsel for the petitioners in these various writ petitions before this Court vehemently raised following arguments:
(i) The Tribunal could have only decided the issue which was before it and could not have decided any issue which was not before it and it cannot transgress the limits on the basis of whims or sense of justice.
(ii) It was submitted that the petitioners-Union of India have finalised the seniority list of JE(B/R) in implementation of the judgment of Earnakulam Bench of Tribunal. Thus, holding the DPC will unsettle the entire cadre/grade of JEs not only regarding their seniority but also regarding fixation of their pay and promotion and the same would create an uncontrollable chaos in the department.
(iii) Any attempt to hold DPC to fix seniority will also be in violation of the direction of Ernakulam Bench of Tribunal, which has dismissed CP taking note of seniority list dated 21-12-2006 (Annexure P-8).
(iv) Furthermore after decision of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Utranchal v. Dinesh Kumar Sharma (Appeal (Civil) No. 5573/2006 dated 04-12-2006), the promotion can be effective only from the date of promotion and not from the date of occurrence of vacancies. Thus, even if the vacancies can be presumed during the period from 1995-96 to 2001, no promotion can be made effective from such dates and promotion can be made effective only from the date of DPC or the date of actual promotion. (v)It was further argued by learned Counsel for the petitioners in Writ petition No. 7504 of 2009 filed by one S. Poonnammal, another degree holder, on similar lines, directly before this Court that as per the petition, she filed O.A. No. 544/2007 in Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi against DPC from Grade II to Grade I. The same was declared as infructuous with a liberty to raise the grievance, if any, in future, before this Court. It was pleaded that the petitioner is a degree holder and the new stand of Union of India, holding DPC w.e.f. 1996 would effect the eligibility of the persons, like the petitioner, who are degree holders and have become eligible for promotion to AE in the year 2004-05 as per the Recruitment Rules 1978 in force, available vacancy and seniority position. The instructions dated 02-03-2009, if implemented, would give undue advantage to diploma holders to make them eligible for the vacancy occurring in the year 2004-05 and the name of the petitioner, who is a degree holder, would be ignored. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-Tek Chand in CWP No. 20253 of 2006 raised a similar plea and objected strongly to the proposal of the petitioner No. 1.
(vi) According to Mr. A.K. Behera, counsel for the petitioner in CWP No. 7504 of 2009, the Tribunal has totally misled itself in passing the impugned order. It is submitted that as a matter of fact, no such direction for convening of DPCs for promotion of Grade II Superintendents to Grade-I Superintendents could have been issued since such a direction would run totally counter to the settled position of law as stated by the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal dated 31-031995 and 15-06-1995 in OA Nos. 1337 ad 1364 to 1375 of 1994, wherein, the Tribunal held that after implementation of its directions, the post of Superintendent Grade-I would become `non functional and non promotional.'' It is submitted that the aforesaid directions of the Tribunal stand confirmed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court by the dismissal of the SLP filed by the Union of India. In such circumstances, any direction to convene DPCs for the period 1996 and onwards till 2001 would be prima facie illegal and against the settled position of law as enunciated by the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India.
(vii) Learned Counsel for the petitioners further argued that the Delhi High Court has already considered the question and held that the merger of Superintendent Grade I and II had taken place on 09-07-1999 and the grievance of the respondents that their seniority should be considered by holding the DPC for the year 1995-96 has been dealt with by the Delhi High Court, in its order dated 03-07-2009, wherein, it was held that for the posts of Superintendent, viz., Grade II and Grade-I, entry Grade of Rs. 1400-2300/- was specified and the higher scale of Rs. 1640-2900/-was to be given after completion of five years service, which was to be non-functional and non-promotional with clear stipulation that the benefit of FR 22(1)(a)(i) would not be admissible. Likewise, on completion of 15 years of service, these Superintendents including Superintendents Grade-II whether degree holder or diploma holders, received the benefits. These grades being non-promotional and non-functional, the further promotion cannot be sought.
21. Learned Counsel for the parties were heard.
22. The first and main argument raised by learned Counsel for the petitioners, in all these writ petitions that the Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, had no occasion to deal with the issue, as has been dealt with in the judgment impugned before this Court and the Tribunal undertook to decide a case regardless of the fact that there was no such prayer requesting of holding a DPC and had issued directions in the O.A which were not prayed for, is incorrect. The prayer in the O.A before the Tribunal would clearly reveal that answering respondent had prayed for issuance of a direction against the respondents (petitioners herein) to fix seniority of JE (B/R) on the basis of date of their joining in the cadre and thereafter consider them for promotion as per their seniority and eligibility and till then, the respondents (petitioners herein) may be restrained from promoting private respondents to the next higher post of AE (Civil). Thus, the answering respondent has essentially prayed before the Tribunal for fixation of their rightful seniority in the seniority list which can be done only by determining the correct place of the answering respondent after giving him the benefit of notional promotion as Superintendent Grade-I for the vacancies of the year when, he, despite his eligibility, could not be promoted but for non-holding of DPC by the petitioners. Thus, the direction as on today is not really for grant of promotion to the answering respondent but for determining his correct place in the combined seniority list vis--vis those who have been recruited as Superintendent Grade-I much later in time than the answering respondent.
23. The second argument raised by the petitioners that the impugned directions of the Tribunal run contrary to the directions by the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal, cannot be accepted. A perusal of the judgment dated 31-03-1995 of the Bangalore Bench shows that the limited issue before the Bangalore Bench was pay parity between the Superintendents in MES and their respective counterparts in CPWD. The question of seniority was not neither raised before the Bangalore Bench nor decided.
24. Taking into account the other arguments, addressed by learned Counsel for the parties, as well as, taking into account the judgment of Bangalore Bench and Delhi High Court, following facts emerge:
(i) The date of merger of the posts of Superintendent Grade-I and Grade-II was July 1999.
(ii) There was no Superintendent Grade I and II after 1999 as the posts were redesignated.
(iii) Statutory rules stood amended only in the year 2001.
(iv) MES (Superintendent (B/R) Grade I & II) Recruitment Rules, 1983, were applicable before 2001.
(v) MES (Superintendent (B/R) Grade I & II) Recruitment Rules, 1983, envisages two grades, namely Grade I and II for the post of Superintendent (B/R) Grade I, was provided to be a selection post and the mode of recruitment was 87.5% by promotion and 12.5% by direct recruitment.
(vi) That in terms of the letter dated 25-04-1996 and judgment of Bangalore Bench, existence of above two grades came to an end and only one grade of Superintendent remained.
(vii) Direct recruitment against 12.5% quota was being made against Superintendent Grade I, inspite of the letter dated 25-04-1996 and the ban, whereas, no DPC for promotion of eligible Superintendents Grade II to Superintendent Grade I, was held.
25. It is evident from the above facts that the only dispute now that remains herein is with respect to the vacuum in interregnum period from the year 1995 to 1999.
26. The respondents, however, are aggrieved with the period from 1995 to 1999 for the simple reason that the petitioners admittedly made direct recruitment against 12.5% quota, in terms of 1983 Rules, while DPC for these very years, for eligible Superintendents Grade II, could not be held leading to an anomalous situation and disturbance in seniority list.
27. The grievance of the respondents is justified.
28. Learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, submitted that the Delhi High Court has already dealt with the same in para 8 of its judgment, which is as follows :
8. Certain Superintendent Grade II working in MES, Southern Command approached the Bangalore Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal claiming the functional and other parities with the Junior Engineers in CPWD, who were given the aforesaid benefit by decision dated 22.03.1991. They wanted the extension of same benefits. In its judgment, Bangalore Bench accepted their plea and directed that same benefits as provided to the Junior Engineers of CPWD be extended to Superintendent Grade II working in MES. This judgment of the Bangalore Bench was accepted by the official respondents by issuing the orders dated 25.04.1996. Reading of this order shows that it is on the same terms on which the benefits were given to Junior Engineers working in CPWD vide Circular dated 22.03.1991. With this, Superintendent Grade-II have also been given the entry grade of Rs. 1400-2300/-, non-functional higher grade of Rs. 1640-2900/- after the expiry of 5 years and grade of Rs. 2000-3500/-, which is the grade of Assistant Engineer after the expiry of 15 years in case they are not promoted to the said post in the meantime. The petitioner and the private respondents had obtained the benefits of the above orders. After rendering 15 years of service all of them apparently have received the grade of Assistant Engineers, but not accommodation in regular promotional posts.
29. On the basis of the above, it was submitted that Superintendent Grade II had already been given the entry grade, after the expiry of 5 years and also after 15 years. These grades were non functional and non-promotional. As such, they cannot claim promotion after having received these grades. Learned Counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the suggestion.
30. It is difficult to accept the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioners, in as much as, in the year 1995, the Bangalore Bench of CAT vide its judgments dated 31.03.1995, upheld the claim of some employees belonging to MES and declared their parity of pay with their respective counterparts in CPWD, yet the fact remains that the recruitment rules 1983 for the post of Superintendent (B/R) Grade I and II continued to remain in force with the result that in accordance with the said recruitment rules, petitioners continued to make direct recruitment to the 12.5% quota provided to Superintendent Grade I and many persons were recruited as Superintendent Grade-I direct recruits from 1996 onwards. No promotion against 87.5% quota was made. This created an anomalous situation causing disturbance in the inter se seniority between the then existing Superintendent Grade-I and the direct recruit and Superintendent Grade II for whom DPC was not held for their promotion to Superintendent Grade I. It was during this time that petitioners vide their letter dated 9.7.1999 (Annexure P-5A) conveyed this sanction of the President of re-designation of Superintendent (B/R) Grade II & Grade I as Junior Engineer (Civil). It is important to note that para 2 of this letter clearly provided that:
re-designation in no way, will affect the existing inter se seniority of these personnel in their respective cadres. Recruitment rules will be amended accordingly in due course
31. The same can be looked at from another angle. The petitioner do not deny that the recruitment rules for the post of Superintendent Grade I and II continued to remain in force till its amendment in the year 2001. The Delhi High Court, in its judgment dated 03.07.2009, has also observed the same that the designation of Superintendent Grade-II is Junior Engineer. Further promotion is to the post of Assistant Engineer which were formalized in the year 2001. Once, it is accepted that the 1983 rules were amended in the year 2001, the promotion prior to 2001, will have to be in accordance with the 1983 rules. Having accepted the year 1999 as the date of merger by the parties and as also held by the Delhi High Court, the recruitment rules of 1983 will be applicable prior to the date.
32. The Rules called as MES (Superintendent (B/R) Grade I & II) Recruitment Rules, 1983 further provide that the recruitment rules for the post of Superintendent (B/R) as then prevailing, had been framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and were notified vide notification dated 10.11.1983. The Rules called as MES (Superintendent (B/R) Grade I & II) Recruitment Rules, 1983 envisaged two grades namely Grade I & II for the post of Superintendent (B/R). Superintendent (B/R) Grade I was provided to be a selection post and the mode of recruitment as 87.5% by promotion and 12.5% by direct recruitment. In accordance with the 1983 rules, the petitioners continued to make direct recruitment to 12.5% quota provided to Superintendent Grade I but no DPC was held for promotion of eligible Superintendent Grade II to Superintendent Grade I against the 87.5% quota, creating a grave situation. Thus, if the 1983 rules could be applied qua the direct recruits from the year 1995 to 1999, it is not understood as to how the same should not be applied for promotion of eligible Superintendent Grade II to Grade I, only on the ground that higher grades were granted for non-functional and non-promotional posts.
33. Mere grant of higher scale of pay after a specific period, as in the present case, does not amount to promotion, unless a promotion is actually made in accordance with the rules. Denial of their claim to grant them due place in the seniority list, would result in denial of their right to further promotion to the next higher post in accordance with their due seniority. The denial would perpetuate a wrong already done to them. Even otherwise, the impugned directions by Tribunal clearly stipulate that holding of proforma DPC as directed, would help in refixation of their seniority after their placement in Grade I. Thus, this observation of the Tribunal clearly disclose the judicial intent behind the direction namely that the eligible Superintendent Grade II would have to be put at their rightful place in the seniority list vis--vis those recruited as against the 12.5% quota for the direct recruits under the erstwhile 1983 Rules then in force. Thus, it is absolutely wrong to now contend that the directions of Tribunal means to order promotion to a non-existent post. It is, thus, in adjudication of this dispute raised by these persons that Tribunal for the purposes of restoring their correct place in the seniority, has rightly made directions to the petitioners to hold proforma DPCs for these years so that these eligible Superintendent Grade II are placed at their rightful place in the seniority list which was the prayer before the tribunal.
34. We may also note that the present petitioner has also very fairly proposed vide A-1 to administratively issue promotion panels for the post of Grade I from the year 1995 to 1999 while admitting that an anomalous situation had occurred on account of non-promotion of Superintendent Grade II to Grade I during the period 1995 to 2001, causing discrimination vis-a-vis direct recruits.
35. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are dismissed with the modification that the DPC from Superintendent Grade II to Superintendent Grade I shall now be done for the period 1995 to 1999, instead of up to April 2001, for re-fixation of their seniority after their placement in Superintendent Grade I, keeping in mind the seniority and availability of vacancy of Grade I.
