AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
L. Narasimha Reddy, J
This OA was filed way back in the year 2002 claiming relief in the form of a direction to the respondents to grant seniority to the applicant Nos.2 to 12, in the post of Works Assistant from the date on which the vacancies have arisen. The OA was dismissed through an order dated 25.10.2002 placing reliance upon the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in Direct Recruits Class II Engineering Officers' Association v. State of Maharashtra JT 1990 (2) SC 264.
The applicants filed W.P. (C) No.41/2003 before the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court, feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of the OA. The writ petition was allowed on 06.12.2018 with the following directions:-
"10. In these circumstances, it would be appropriate that the CAT reconsiders this aspect and after giving due notice having regard to the available records, makes appropriate orders including suitable equitable order with respect to what would be the impact if others are likely to be affected i.e. such as the direction to create supernumerary posts for temporary period or periods, as the case may be.
The CAT is also directed to consider the feasibility of impleading some others, if necessary, in a representative capacity to participate in the remand proceedings.
In view of the above findings and directions, the impugned order is set aside, and OA No.115 of 2002 is remitted for fresh consideration by the CAT, which is required to dispose it of within six months, after hearing the concerned parties and also after taking into account all records."
The matter was taken up for hearing. A specific question was put to the learned counsel for the applicants regarding the particulars, relevant to the appointment of the applicants, the dates on which the vacancies have arisen, and provision of law or a binding precedent that enables them to claim seniority anterior to the date of their actual appointment. Another aspect is the persons, who would be affected. However, no answer was forthcoming. When the applicants are not clear about their own service particulars, it is difficult to expect them to furnish the particulars of the persons who would be affected in the event of the relief claimed in the OA being granted. When the same is pointed out, learned counsel for the applicants got instructions from his clients who are present in Court, and sought permission to withdraw the OA with liberty to file individual cases or a common OA, without reference to any association, and duly impleading the affected parties. We accord permission.
Hence, the OA is dismissed as withdrawn. However, it shall be open to the applicants to pursue the remedies in accordance with law.