As per case facts, petitioners, Accounts Officers, found their seniority disturbed by the retrospective promotion of a junior Assistant Accounts Officer (Respondent No. 6) under the Uniform Career Progression (UCP) ... Scheme. This DVC scheme included clauses explicitly protecting inter-se seniority at its implementation and mandated stepping up seniors if juniors gained higher pay due to the scheme. Despite internal recommendations and a committee report supporting petitioners, DVC rejected their request. The question arose whether the UCP Scheme could override its own explicit safeguards preserving pre-existing seniority, and if DVC's selective application of rules was permissible. Finally, the Court ruled DVC's actions arbitrary and discriminatory, unlawfully disturbing seniority. It held UCP Scheme's seniority protection must be upheld. The Court allowed the writ petition, ordering restoration of petitioners' seniority as it existed on the scheme's implementation date, with consequential benefits.