AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arindam Sinha, J
WP(C) nos.27381 of 2019, 14243 of 2021 and 16871 of 2021
Petitioners are represented. Mr. Mohanty, learned advocate appears on behalf of opposite party nos. 4 to 22 in WP(C) no.27381 of 2019. He relies on judgment of the Supreme Court in S.P.Shivprasad Pipal v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1998 Supreme Court 1882, paragraph 19 to submit, the writ petitions cannot be maintained and should be dismissed. Petitioners have challenged the merger of two posts. They cannot do so under the law.
He draws attention to page 18 in his clients’ counter to demonstrate that there were more posts available for promotion in operational wing than the mechanical wing. There was common entrance. This difference in promotional prospects was known to all at the time of entrance. Petitioners having accepted their appointment in the mechanical wing having less promotional prospect cannot now challenge the merger on disparity in seniority.
Mr. Babu, learned advocate, Addl. Govt. Advocate appears on behalf of State. State will file additional affidavit disclosing initial entrance procedure adopted in case of petitioners and opposite parties, of the two wings i.e. operational and mechanical. The affidavit is to be filed by 21st March, 2022, upon copies served on petitioners and contesting opposite parties.
List on 28th March, 2022.
………………………