1. This intra court appeal has been filed against the order dated 11.11.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge, by which, the writ petition preferred by respondent nos.2 & 3 has been allowed and the notification dated 03.05.2013/06.05.2013 and the endorsement dated 21.07.2017 has been quashed.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal briefly stated are, that respondent nos.2 & 3 were working as First Division Assistants (FDAs) in the Karnataka Slum Development Board (for short, 'the Board'). The final seniority list of the cadre of FDAs was published vide Office Memorandum dated 29.05.2013, by which, respondent nos.2 to 8 were promoted as Office Superintendents. The request of respondent nos.2 & 3 for revision of seniority list was rejected vide endorsement dated 21.07.2017. The aforesaid orders were challenged in the writ petition.

3. The learned Single Judge by order dated 11.11.2021 has quashed the endorsement dated 21.07.2017 and a direction has been issued to consider the case of respondent nos.2 & 3 as well as the appellants for promotion to the post of Office Superintendents based on the ranking to be assigned in the manner directed by the learned Single Judge from the date on which the appellants were promoted to the cadre of FDA with all consequential benefits.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants were promoted to the cadre of FDA on 06.01.2011, whereas respondent nos.2 & 3 were promoted to the cadre of FDA on 21.01.2011, and therefore, respondent nos.2 & 3 were juniors to the appellants. However, the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter

5. We have considered the submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellants.

6. The record reveals that respondent nos.2 & 3 were initially appointed as FDAs on daily wage basis on 01.03.1983 and 24.10.1986. The appellants herein were appointed to the post of Second Division Assistants on daily wage basis on 02.02.1985. The services of respondent nos.2 & 3 were regularized by an order passed on 22.11.1989 and 01.04.1992, whereas the services of the appellants were regularized as Second Division Assistants and Typists on 01.08.1989 and the appellants were promoted to the post of FDAs on 06.01.2011. Thus, from the aforesaid narration of facts, it is evident that respondent nos.2 & 3 were seniors to the appellants.

7. The learned Single Judge has taken into account Rule-1(a) of the Karnataka Government Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1957, as well as the Division Bench decision to hold that the length of service in the cadre of FDA is the basis for determination of seniority. The learned Single Judge, therefore, has rightly quashed the notification dated 03.05.2013/06.05.2013 in so far as it pertains to assigning seniority to respondent nos.2 & 3 and the appellants herein with a further direction to the Board to assign fresh ranking to respondent nos.2 & 3 as well as the appellants from the date on which their services were regularized in the cadre of FDA.

8. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. In the result, the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.