that list was revised from time to time and ultimately the government of india approved the final seniority list which came to be published on may 29 1973.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 19 6 1974 of the bombay high companyrt in s.c.a.
he later amended that peti tion and asked for arrears of pay and allowances retrospece tively from the date on which he ought to have been promoted in accordance with the seniority list approved by the cen tral government.
the answer to this question depends on whether the rights of the respondent are governed by the circular dated march 10 1960 or by the circular dated february 25 1965.
the writ petition having been allowed by the nagpur bench of the bombay high companyrt the state of maharashtra has filed this appeal by special leave.
the respondent has no grievance against his placement in that list but his case is that under the seniority lists prepared from time to time by the state government he was erroneously accorded a lower place of seniority with the result that persons who were in fact junior to him came to be promoted on the assumption that they were senior to him.
shroff for the appellants.
the respondent therefore filed the present writ petition on october 14 1970 asking for due recognition of his seniority.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 651 of 1976.
in july 1958 the respondent was promoted as an agricul tural supervisor and in april 1967 he was appointed to the post of an agricultural officer.
on the reorganisation of states a provisional companybined seniority list of agricultural assistants grade ii was published by the government of maharashtra in 1961.
v. gupte n. kamalakar and a.g.
number 1251 of 1970.
ratnaparkhi for the respondent.
n. phadke girish chandra and m.n.
by a resolution dated february 17 1958 the government of bombay equated the post of agricul tural overseer with that of an agricultural assistant grade ii.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by chandrachud j. on the reorganisation of states on numberember 1 1956 the respondent who was working as an agri cultural overseer in the then state of madhya pradesh was allocated first to the state of bombay and later to the state of maharashtra.
