As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the 1st respondent cannot review the order passed by the appellate authority, but, at the same time, it is required to notice that prior to 1980, the petitioners were not appointed by transfer as LDCs, though the Board proceedings indicate that the persons, who possessed graduation or five years of service in the lower category, are only eligible for promotion to the higher post. Taking advantage of the said Board proceedings, the petitioners indulged in speculation by giving a representation in the year 1990 stating that their services have to be notionally regularized in the category of LDC with effect from 1974. Basing on the eligibility criteria, the petitioners cannot claim even notional seniority. Even the notional seniority as fixed by the first respondent is confirmed by the Board with effect from 11-03-1974 and 14-08-1974, has become final, but they are illegal and perverse orders. No challenge has been made insofar as those proceedings are concerned, but the petitioners cannot claim any right or any benefit from those illegal orders. The entire case of the petitioners is based upon those two orders, which cannot be given effect to. There cannot be any dispute that any illegal orders cannot be perpetuated or cannot be given effect to. All the Board proceedings would only indicate the eligibility criteria. Simply because a person, who is having a graduation qualification for the purpose of promotion as LDC, it does not mean that he has to be appointed as LDC. Depending upon the vacancies, depending upon the confirmation in the lower cadre and depending upon the seniority, their promotion has to be given. So following the guidelines, the petitioners were given promotion in the year 1980. Now the petitioners are claiming for fixation of notional seniority in the cadre of LDC from the year 1974, on which date, they were not appointed by transfer as LDCs.
