AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Petitioners writ petition (SWP No. 11797 95) nonprosecution but taking cognizance of the point in issue raised in this petition stood covered by
a Division Bench judgment of this court and also affirmed by the Supreme Court.
Petitioners have filed this application for revival of the writ petition disputing the statement of learned counsel for the respondents that the point in
issue was covered by the D3 judgment of this court and also upheld by the Supreme Court. This necessitated the going into the merits of the
controversy which can be traced some time to early 60s.
It transpires that the petitioners were undergoing a diploma course in Polytechnic. They could not, however, take the examination due to the
outbreak of war in 1965. A circular was consequently .issued by the Staterespondent making them eligible for grant of provisional certificates ori
the condition that they would complete 2 years practical training with an employer.
Be that as it may, they came to be appointed as sectional officers alongwith respondents No.4 by order No. 122CIR dated 29.6.1966. In this
order they admittedly figured higher to respondent No.4 who was placed at S No. 22. thereafter a tentative seniority list dated 18.12.1983 was
issued wherein they were again shown senior to respondent No.4 who was placed at S.No. 73. This seniority position was reiterated in 1986 and
1987 also.
It futher appears that respondent No.4 felt aggrieved of his seniority position and made representations. In the meanwhile staterespondent
passed a circular in 1968 laying down that all such diploma holders who were granted relaxation because of declaration of emergency in 1965
would be treated to have been appointed regularly from the date of completion of their 2 years practical training as envisaged by the Circular of
1966. This became a subject matter of challenge before the court and the matter was finally settled by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA NO.
221 84 upholding the validity of the circular and in other words, ruling that the appointment of ""emergency diploma holders"" would be regularised
from the date of the completion of their 2 years practical training. This position was reportedly affirmed by the Supreme Court also and in this
matter it came to be settled that the seniority of ""emergency diploma holders"" would reckon from the date their services were regularised i.e., from
the date they completed their 2 years practical training with an employer as envisaged by the 1966 circular.
It further seems that respondent No.4 filed writ petition No. 311/92 in this court for correction of his seniority position. It was disposed of with
a direction to the Staterespondent to consider his representation and to assign him an appropriate place in the seniority list. Pursuant thereto, Govt.
Order No. 311PDD of 1995 dated 30.8.1995 was passed and relying upon a judgment of this court passed by Division flench LPA No. 25/84 it
was decided to place respondent No.4 at S.No. 49 of the seniority list.
Petitioners felt aggrieved of this order and questioned it in writ petition (SWP No. 1179/95). All that remains to be examined at this stage is:
whether the point in issue raised in the petition (SWP 1179/95) stands coveredby a DB judgment of this court passed in LPA No. 25.94. Even
petitioners counsel, Mr. Rama, does not contest that in the judgment (supra) the validity of ciruclar dated 2 8.1968 providing for regularisation of
the services of the ""emergency diploma holders"", from the date of completion of their 2 years practical training was upheld. That being so, it
requires no further proof to conclude that the point in issue raised by the petitioners in SWP No. 1179/95, seeking reopening of the controversy
stands settled once and for all by a Division Bench judgment of this court passed in LPA 25/84 and affirmed by the Supreme Court. It, therefore,
cannot be allowed to be reopened through the medium of SWP No. 1179/95.
Viewed thus, learned counsel for the respondents were justified in making a statement before the court that since the point in issue raised in the
petition was covered by a Division Bench judgment of this court as also by the Supreme Court, the writ proceedings launched in SWP No. 1179
of 1995 were redundant and would serve no purpose if continued. It is not a case where the issues raised in the writ petition are still open to
adjudiction.
In the circumstances, I find no merit in this application otherwise also and reject it.