ASHOK KUMAR & ANRversusSTATE OF BIHAR & ORS

                        [2016] 8 S.C.R. 815


                    ASHOK KUMAR & ANR                                     A
                                  v.
                    STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
                  (Civil Appeal No. 9092 of2012)
                      . OCTOBER 21, 2016                                  B
       [T. S. THAKUR, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND
                 DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
       Service Law: Bihar Civil Court Staff (Class III and Class IV)
(Amendment) Rules, 2001 - rr.5,6, 7, 10 - Promotion through selection
- Selection Criteria - Eighty five marks a/located for written            c
examination and fifteen for interview - Select list not approved -
Fresh selection process with a/location of marks for written exam
and interview in the ratio of 90:10 - Appellants participated in the
fresh process of selection but were unsuccessful and subsequently,
they challenged the selection process - Propriety - Held : Appellants     D
appeared in an examination without any objection to process of
selection - They cannot subsequently turn around and contend that
the selection process was unfair or that there was a lacuna therein,
merely because result is not palatable - Principle of estoppel would
operate - Constitution of India - Art. 309 - Principle of estoppel.
                                                                          E
       Applications were invited for promotion to Class III posts from
amongst Class IV employees of the Civil Court. Eighty five marks were
fixed for the written examination and fifteen for the interview.
Appointment committee submitted list of selected candidates to High
Court. High Court declined to approve the select list and issued a
communication requiring holding of fresh written examination carrying     F
ninety marks and interview often marks. Appellants participated in the
fresh process of selection but were unsuccessful and subsequently, they
challenged the selection process.
      Disposing of the appeal, the Court
      HELD: 1. The appellants participated in the fresh process           G
of selection. If the appellants were aggrieved by the decision to
hold a fresh process, they did not espouse their remedy. Instead,
they participated in the fresh process of selection and it was only
upon being unsuccessful that they challenged the result in the
writ petition. This was clearly not open to the appellants. The           H
                                  815
816            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2016) 8 S.C.R.


A     principle of estoppel would operate. In the present case, the fact
      that the appellants were clearly on notice, when the fresh selection
      process took place that written examination would carry ninety
      marks and the interview, ten marks. The appellants participated
      in the selection process. Moreover, two other considerations
 B    weigh in balance. There was an element of vagueness about
      whether Rule 6 which dealt with promotion merely incorporated
      the requirement of an examination provided in Rule 5 for direct
      recruitment to Class III posts or whether the marks and qualifying
      marks were also incorporated. Moreover, no prejudice was
      established to have been caused to the appellants by the 90:10
C     allocation. [Paras 11, 13][822-H; 823-A; 825-E-G]
             2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, to meet the
      ends of justice, it was directed that in the event that there is any
      existing vacancy, appellant may be allowed to work on Class III
      post in which he is currently working on the provisional basis
D     until the next round of selection process takes place. The appellant
      would be at liberty to participate in the selection process that
      may be held in future and in the event he is declared successful,
      he would be at liberty to make a representation to the competent
      authority for consideration of the period spent by him on the Class
      III post for the purpose of fixation of seniority. [Para 16][826-C-
 E
      E]
            Raj Kumar v. Shakti R,a} (1997) 9 SCC 527-
            distinguished.
            Marripati Nagaraja v. The Govern111ent of Andhra
 F          Pradesh (2007) 11 SCC 522 : 2007 (11) SCR 506;
            Dhananjay Malik v. State of Uttaranchal (2008) 3
            PLJR (SC) 271; A111lan Jyoti Borrooah v State ofAssa111
            (2009) 3 SCC 227 : 2009 (1) SCR 593; Chandra
            Prakash Trwari v Shakuntala Shukla (2002) 6 SCC 127
            : 2002 (3) SCR 948; Union ofIndia v. S. Vinodh Kumar
G           (2007) 8 SCC 100 : 2007 (10) SCR 41; Munindra
            Kumar v. Rajiv Govil (1991) 3 SCC 368 : 1991 (2) SCR
            812; Rasl1111i Mishra li MP. Public Service Commission
            (2006) 12 sec 724 : 2006 (7) Suppl. scR 708;
            Manish Kumar Shah v. State of Bihar (2010) 12 SCC
H           576; Vijendra Kumar Verma v. Public Service
    ASHOK KUMAR & ANR v. STATE OF BIHAR & ORS                          817



     Commission (2011) 1 SCC 150: 2010 (12) SCR 944;                   A
     Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi (2013) 11 SCC
     309 : 2013 (5) SCR 687; Chandigarh Administration
     v. Jasmine Kaur (2014) 10 SCC 521 : 2014 (9)
      SCR 1122; Pradeep Kumar Raiv. Dinesh Kumar
     Pandey (2015) 11 SCC 493: 2015 (6) SCR 825;
                                                                        8
     Madras Institute of Development v. S.K. Shiva
     Subaramanyam (2016) 1 SCC 454 - referred to.
                      Case Law Reference
      2007 (11) SCR 506            referred to        Para7
     (2008) 3 PLJR (SC) 271        referred to        Para7             c
      2009 (1) SCR 593             referred to        Para 7
      2002 (3) SCR 948             referred to        Para 12
      2007 (10) SCR 41             referred to        Para 12
                                                                        D
      1991 (2) SCR 812             referred to        Para 12
      2006 (7) Suppl. SCR 708 referred to             Para 12
      (2010) 12 sec 576             referred to       Para 12
      2010 (12) SCR 944             referred to       Para 12
                                                                        E
      2013 (5) SCR 687              referred to       Para 12
      2014 (9) SCR 1122             referred to       Para 12
      2015 (6) SCR 825              referred to       Para 12
       (2016) 1 sec 454             referred to       Para 12
                                                                        F
       (1997) 9 sec s21             distinguished     Para 14
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9092
of2012.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 16.12.2011 of the High Court
of Judicature at Patna in LPA No. 1991 of 2010.                         G
     Amit Pawan, Akshat Shrivastava, Suryodaya Prakash Tiwari,
Gaurav Singh, Ad vs. for the Appellant.
     Nagendra Rai, Sr. Adv., Ms. Prema Singh, Shashank Saurav, T.
Mahipal, Gopal Singh, Shlok Chandra, Advs. for the Respondents.
                                                                        H
818             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2016] 8 S.C.R.


A           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
             DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J, I. This appeal arises from a
      judgment and order ofa Division Bench of the High Court ofJudicature
      at Patna dated 16 December 2011 which allowed a Letters Patent Appeal
      instituted by the ninth to fourteenth respondents. The Division Bench set
B     aside the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 9
      November 2010 by which selections made by promotion from Class IV
      posts to Class III posts in the District Court ofMuzaffarpur were quashed.
      The Division Bench has held that the original petitioners who succeeded
      before the learned Single Judge in challenging the process of promotion
      were estopped from doing so, having unsuccessfully participated in the
c     selection process.
          2. On 2 December 2003, the office of the District and Sessions
  Judge, Muzaffarpur issued General order No. 204 of 2003 inviting
  applications for promotion to six Class III posts from amongst Class IV
  employees of the Civil Court at Muzaffarpur. The selection was to be
D made on the basis of a fresh written test and interview. Twenty seven
  candidates appeared in the written examination which was conducted
  on 20 April 2004 of whom fourteen qualified. These candidates were
  interviewed on 7 July 2004. Eighty five marks were fixed for the written
  examination and fifteen marks for the interview. The appointment
E committee selected six candidates on the basis of merit for appointment
  to the six Class III posts by promotion. The select list was submitted to
  the High Court on 26 July 2004. The High Court declined to approve the
  select list on the ground that the marks allotted for the written examination
  were not in accordance with the Court's General letter No. I of 1995
  and the Rules of 1992, 1998 and 200 I covering Bihar Civil Court Staff.
F By a letter dated 19 August 2004, the Registrar (Administration) directed
  the District and Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur to hold a fresh examination
  fixing ninety marks for the written examination by treating the qualifying
  marks as forty five.
        3. Accordingly, a fresh General order (171 of2004) was issued
G by the District and Sessions Judge on 8 October 2004. The General
  order specifically adverted to the communication dated 9 August 2004
  of the High Court and stipulated that a fresh written examination
  comprising ninety marks would be held (with qualifying marks of forty
  five) which would be followed by an interview carrying ten marks.
H Pursuant to this, a written test was held on 7 November 2004 followed
      ASHOK KUMAR & ANR v. STATE OF BIHAR & ORS                              819
               [DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

by an interview on 12 December 2004. Results were declared on 31             A
December 2004 and the ninth to fourteenth respondents were appointed
on Class III posts. All the appellants participated in the process of
selection.
       4. The two appellants and four other unsuccessful candidates then
filed a Writ Petition before the High Court in order to challenge the        B
General order dated 8 October 2004 and the order of appointment dated
31 December 2004. The primary ground was that the appointment
process was vitiated, since under the relevant rules, the written test was
required to carry eighty five marks and the interview, fifteen marks.
Counter affidavits were filed in response to the Writ Petition by the
Registrar of the Civil Court at Muzaffarpur, the Registrar General of the     c
High Court and by the selected candidates. The High Court on the
administrative side defended its action by placing reliance on its General
letter bearing No. I of 1995 (Civil) dated 22 November 1995 which
stipulated a written examination comprising of ninety marks (with
qualifying marks of forty five) followed by an interview carrying ten         D
marks for promotion from Class IV to Class III posts. The High Court
submitted in its counter affidavit that this General letter continued to
hold the field. Moreover, it was urged that Rule 6 of the Bihar Civil
Court Staff(Class III and Class IV) (Amendment) Rules, 2001 stipulates
that promotion from Class IV to Class III posts shall be made by an
appointment committee on the basis of merit cum seniority. While the          E
Rules of 200 I also stipulated the mode of appointment by promotion, the
procedure for promotion was governed by General LetterNo. l of 1995.
This, it was urged, has been reiterated in the administrative instructions
 issued by the High Court on 20 December 2007.
       5. The learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ         F
petition and quashed the appointment made by the District and Sessions
Judge, Muzaffarpur. The learned Single Judge held that under Rule 6 of
the Bihar Civil Court Staff(Class III and Class IV)( Amendment) Rules,
2001,the written examination was to carry eighty five marks and the
interview fifteen marks (instead and in place of the earlier requirement      G
of ninety marks and ten marks respectively). In the view of the learned
Single Judge, once the rules, which have been made under Article 309,
were amended in 200 I, the earlier rules would stand superseded and the
General letter of the High Court would not have the effect of overriding
the statutory rules. The examination, it was i10ticed was held after the
                                                                              H
820              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        (2016] 8 S.C.R.


A     new rules had come into force in July 2001. In consequence, the learned
      Single Judge held that the notification fixing eighty five marks for the
      written examination and fifteen marks for the interview had been correctly
      issued by the District and Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur who as a result,
      was directed to declare the results of all those who had participated in
      the first selection examination.
 B
             6. After the order of the learned Single Judge, a direction was
      issued by which six persons who had been appointed to Class III posts
      were reverted to their original Class IV posts on 30 November 2010.
      They filed a Letters Patent Appeal in order to challenge the judgment
      and order of the learned Single Judge. In the meantime, an order was
 c    issued by the District and Sessions Judge by which six persons who
      were successful in the first selection process were promoted to Class
      III posts. The candidates included both the appellants and four other
      candidates. These four candidates were also successful in the previous
      result. As a consequence, two persons were excluded.
D            7. The Division Bench of the High Court by a judgment and order
   dated 16 December 2011 allowed the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the
   ninth to fourteenth respondents and, while setting aside the judgment
   and order of the learned Single Judge, restored the original order of
   appointment dated 31 December 2004. The Division Bench agreed with
 E the construction placed by the learned Single Judge on the Rules of
   200 I. However, while interfering with the judgment of the learned Single
   Judge, the Division Bench took the view that the appellants had in
   pursuance of the notification issued by the District and Sessions Judge
   participated in the selection process without any protest. Having failed
   to raise any objection to the selection process, it was held that the
 F appellants were estopped from turning around and challenging the
                                                                                   ,
   selection once they were declared unsuccessful. In taking this view, the
    ""''·1ision Bench has relied upon the judgments of this Court in: (i)
   "··' · ·' oati Nagaraja v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh'; (ii)
   Dhar.;: ·; · y Malik v. State of UttaranchaF; and (iii) Amlan Jyoti
 G Borrooahv. State of Assam 3•
             8. Now at the outset, it would be necessary to advert to the

       1 (2007) 11   sec s22
      2 (2008) 3 PLJR (SC) 271

      ' (2009) 3 sec 227
 H
      ASHOK KUMAR & ANR v. STATE OF BIHAR & ORS                                   821
               [DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

provisions of the Bihar Civil Court Staff (Class III and Class IV)                A
(Amendment) Rules, 1998. Rule 6 provides for the mode of recruitment
of Class ll1 employees through a centralized written examination and
oral interview. Rule 6(ii) earlier provided that the written test shall consist
of ninety marks while ten marks shall be allotted to the interview. Rule 7
deals with appointment by promotion. Rule 7(i) stipulates that
                                                                                  B
appointments from Class III to Class IV posts on promotion shall be
made by the appointment committee on the basis of merit cum seniority.
Rule ?(iii) is in the following terms:
       "for promotion in terms of the preceding rule, the
       Appointment Committee shall hold a separate examination
       of the eligible candidates and call for interview only such                 c
       candidates who obtain the qualifying marks in the written
       examination."
       9. The Bihar Civil Court Staff (Class III and Class IV)
(Amendment) Rules, 2001 were notified with effect from 1I July 2001.
Rules 5to12 were substituted. Rule S(iv) governs the mode of recruitment · D
ofClassIII employees. Rule S(iv)(d) provides for a written test of eighty
five marks and an interview consisting of fifteen marks, totally aggregating
to one hundred marks. The qualifying marks for the written examination
are to be forty five. Rule 6 provides for appointment by promotion in the
following terms:                                                             E
       "Appointment by Promotion-(i) The appointments to Class
       III posts by promotion from Class IV posts shall also be
       made by the Appointment Committee on merit-cum-seniority
       basis;
       (ii) Twenty percent of vacant Class III posts shall be made                 F
       reserved for promotion from Class IV employees who
       possess the minimum educational qualification and have
       three year experience in the post held by them;
       (iii) For promotion in terms of the preceding rule, the
       Appointment Committee shall hold a separate examination                     G
       of the eligible candidates and call for interview only such
       candidates who obtain the qualifying marks in the written
       examination."
       Under Rule 7(iv),all appointments are subject to such directions
                                                                                   H
822            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2016] 8 S.C.R.


A as may be issued by the High Court from time to time. Rule I 0 enables
  the High Court to qualify or supplement the rules by issuing a general or
  special direction from time to time. The amended Rules of 2001, as
  noted above provide for the recruitment of Class III employees in Rule
  S(iv) and for appointment by promotion from Class IV to Class III posts
  in Rule 6.Rule6 (iii) stipulates that for promotion in terms of the preceding
B
  rule, the appointment committee shall hold a separate examination of the
  eligible candidates and call for interview only such candidates who obtain
  the qualifying marks in the written examination. The learned Single Judge
  held that in consequence, Rule 6 incorporates the requirement which is
  provided in Rule 5 of a written examination consisting of eighty five
c marks, an interview of fifteen marks and qualifying marks of forty five
  in the written test. The Division Bench on adverting to the provisions of
  Rules 5 and 6 of the Rules, 2001 noticed that there was some scope for
  interpretation on account of vagueness of the rules. However, on the
  balance, the Division Bench was not inclined to differ with the view of
D the learned Single Judge on the interpretation of the rules.
            10. The basic issue that was addressed by the Division Bench
   was thatthe appellants having participated in the fresh round of selection
   could not be permitted to assail the process once they were declared
   unsuccessful. On this aspect, a briefrecapitulation of the facts would be
   in order. In the original process of selection, following the issuance of
 E General order No. 204 of 2003 by the District and Sessions Judge,
   Muzaffarpuron 2 December2003, a written examination was held on 20
   April 2004 consisting of eighty five marks followed by an interview on 7
   July 2004 consisting of fifteen marks. The High Court declined to approve
   of the selection list and issued through its Registrar (Administration), a
 F communication dated 19 August 2004 requiring the holding of a fresh
   written examination carrying ninety marks in which the qualifying marks
   would be regarded as forty five in terms of its General letter No. I of
    I':'95. Pursuant thereto, a circular was issued in the form of a new General
   ord::r ~earing No.171 of2004 on 8 October 2004wh ich stipulated that in
   terms of the directions issued by the High Court on 19 August 2004, a
 G fresh written examination would be held carrying ninety marks (with
   qualifying marks as forty five) followed by an interview often marks.
   Candidates who had applied earlier were not required to apply afresh.
             11. The appellants participated in the fresh process of selection.
      lfthe appellants were aggrieved by the decision to hold a fresh process,
 H
      ASHOK KUMAR & ANR v. STATE OF BIHAR & ORS                                823
               [DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

they did not espouse their remedy. Instead, they participated in the fresh     A
process of selection and it was only upon being unsuccessful that they
challenged the result in the writ petition. This was clearly not open to the
appellants. The principle of estoppel would operate.
       12. The law on the subject has been crystalized in several decisions
of this Court. In Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla4,                B
this Court laid down the principle that when a candidate appears at an
examination without objection and is subsequently found to be not
successful, a challenge to the process is precluded. The question of
entertaining a petition challenging an examination would not arise where
a candidate has appeared and participated. He or she cannot subsequently
turn around and contend that the process was unfair or that there was a         c
lacuna therein, merely because the result is not palatable. In Union of
India v. S. Vinodh Kumar\ this Court held that:
       "18. It is also well settled that those candidates who had
       taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the
       procedure laid down therein were not entitled to question                D
       the same ...
       (See also Munindra Kumar v. Raj iv Govil 6 and Rashmi
       Mishra v. M.P. Public Service Commission 7)."
       The same view was reiterated in Amlan Jyoti Borroah
(supra)where it was held to bewell settledthat candidates who have taken        E
part in a selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down
therein are not entitled to question it upon being declared to be
unsuccessful.
      In Manish Kumar Shah v. State of Bihar8, the same principle
was reiterated in the following observations:                                   F
       "16. We also agree with the High Court that after having
       taken part in the process of selection knowing fully well
       that more than 19% marks have been earmarked for viva
       voce test, the Petitioner is not entitled to challenge the criteria
       or process of selection. Surely, if the Petitioner's name had            G
       appeared in the merit list, he would not have even dreamed
 '(2002) 6 sec 121
 '(2007) s sec 100
 '(1991) 3 sec 368
 1
   (2006) 12 sec 724
 • (2010) 12 sec 576                                                            H
824              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2016] 8 S.C.R.


A            of challenging the selection. The Petitioner invoked
             jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the
             Constitution of India only after he found that his name does
             not figure in the merit list prepared by the Commission.
             This conduct of the Petitioner clearly disentitles him from
             questioning the selection and the High Court did not commit
B
             any error by refusing to entertain the writ petition. Reference
             in this connection may be made to the Judgments in
             MadanLal v. State of J. and K. MANU/SC/0208/1995 :
             (1995) 3 SCC 486, Marripati Nagaraja v. Government of
             Andhra Pradesh and Ors. MANU/SC/8040/2007: (2007)
c            11 SCC 522, Dhananjay Malik and Ors. v. State of
             Uttaranchal and Ors. MANU/SC/7287/2008: (2008) 4 SCC
             171, AmlanJyotiBorooah v. State of Assam MANU/SC/
             0077/2009: (2009)3 SCC227 and K.A. Nagamani v. Indian
             Airlines and Ors. (supra)."
D              In Vijendra Kumar Vermav. Public Service Commission 9,
       candidates who had participated in the selection process were aware
      'that they were required to possess certain specific qualifications in
        computer operations. The appellants had appeared in the selection process
        and after participating in the interview sought to challenge the selection
        process as being without jurisdiction. This was held to be impermissible.
E
              In Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi 10, candidates who were
       competing for the post of Physiotherapist in the State of Uttrakhand
       participated in a written examination held in pursuance of an
       advertisement. This Court held that if they had cleared the test, the
       respondents would not have raised any objection to the selection process
F      or to the methodology adopted. Having taken a chance of selection, it
       was held that the respondents were disentitled to seek reliefunder Article
       226 and would be deemed to have waived their right to challenge the
       advertisement or the procedure of selection. This Court held that:
             "18. It is settled law that a person who consciously takes
G            partin the process of selection cannot, thereafter, tum around
             and question the method of selection and its outcome."
             In Chandigarh Administration v. Jasmine Kaur 11 , it was held
       '(2011) 1 sec 150
       '°(2013) 11 sec 309
H
       11
          (2014) 10 sec 521
      ASHOK KUMAR & ANR v. STATE OF BIHAR & ORS                               825
               [DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

that a candidate who takes a calculated risk or chance by subjecting          A
himself or herself to the selection process cannot tum around and complain
that the process of selection was unfair after knowing of his or her non-
selection. In Pradeep Kumar Raiv.Dinesh Kumar Pandey 12, this
Court held that:
      "Moreover, we would concur with the Division Bench on                    B
      one more point that the appellants had participated in the
      process of interview and not challenged it till the results
      were declared. There was a gap of almost four months
      between the interview and declaration of result. However,
      the appellants did not challenge it at that time. This, it appears
      that only when the appellants found themselves to be                     c
      unsuccessful, they challenged the interview. This cannot
      be allowed. The candidates cannot approbate and reprobate
      at the same time. Either the candidates should not have
      participated in the interview and challenged the procedure
      or they should have challenged immediately after the                     D
       interviews were conducted."
      This principle has been reiterated in a recent judgment in Madras
Institute of Development v. S.K. Shiva Subaramanyam 13 •
       13. In the present case, regard must be had to the fact that the
appellants were clearly on notice, when the fresh selection process took       E
place that written examination would carry ninety marks and the interview,
ten marks. The appellants participated in the selection process. Moreover,
two other considerations weigh in balance. The High Court noted in the
impugned judgment that the interpretation of Rule 6 was not free from
vagueness. There was in other words no glaring or patent illegality in the     F
process adopted by the High Court. There was an element of vagueness
about whether Rule 6 which dealt with promotion merely incorporated
the requirement of an examination provided in Rule 5 for direct recruitment
to Class III posts or whether the marks and qualifying marks were also
incorporated. Moreover, no prejudice was established to have been caused
to the appellants by the 90: 10 allocation.                                    G

       14. The decision in Raj Kumarv. Shakti Raj 1 ~(which was relied
 12
   (2015) 11 sec 493
 "(2016) 1 sec 454
 " (1997) 9 sec 527
                                                                               H
826             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2016] 8 S.C.R.



A     upon by the appellants) involved a case where government was found to
      have committed glaring illegalities in the procedure. Hence, it was held
      that the principle of estoppel by conduct or acquiescence had no
      application. The decision is distinguishable.
              15. In this view of the matter, the Division Bench cannot held to
B     be in error in coming to the conclusion that it was not open to the appellants
      after participating in the selection process to question the result, once
      they were declared to be unsuccessful. During the course of the hearing,
      this Court is informed that four out of six candidates, who were ultimately
      selected figured both in the first process of selection as well as in the
      subsequent selection. One candidate is stated to have retired.
c
             16. The apprehension now is of the remaining candidate being
      reverted as a result of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High
      Court. In our view, it would be appropriate ifthe equities are duly adjusted
      by a suitable direction. We are of the view that the ends of the justice
      would be met by a direction that in the event that there is any existing
D     vacancy, appellant who has still continued in service, may be allowed to
      continue to work on the Class III post in which he is currently working
      on a provisional basis until the next round of selection process takes
      place. The appellant would be at liberty to participate in the selection
      process that may be held in future and in the event he is declared
.E    successful, he would be at liberty to make a representation to the
      competent authority for consideration of the period spent by him on the
      Class Ill post for the purpose of fixation of seniority.
             17. Subject to the above direction, the judgment of the Division
      Bench and the High Court is affirmed. The appeal shall accordingly
 F    stand disposed of in the above tenns. There shall be no order as to
      costs.


      Ankit Gyan                                                 Appeal disposed of.