However, they cannot be permitted to take seniority over the appellant. It is submitted that the criteria for promotion was not seniority and the appellant was promoted according to the criteria applicable by Departmental Promotion Committee. Hence, the writ petitioners cannot be directed to be given seniority. This submission is refuted by the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners. It is contended that the writ petitioners were not considered on account of pendency of the vigilance enquiry at the time when the appellant was promoted. Hence the present is not a case where it can be held that appellant was more meritorious than the petitioners and the petitioners were bypassed on account of them having not been found fit. Admittedly, the petitioners were not considered for promotion when juniors were promoted. We, thus, are of the view that direction of the learned Single Judge to consider the writ petitioners for promotion and place them at their appropriate place according to seniority has rendered substantial justice. Writ petitioners were clearly entitled for fixation of proforma seniority in the facts of the present case when they were not earlier considered due to vigilance enquiry. Learned Single Judge has rightly directed for promotion since the
