AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Sathasivam, J.—Aggrieved by the order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, dated 3.4.1998, made in O.A. No. 2614 of 1996,
the petitioners, numbering four, have filed the above Writ Petition.
Heard learned counsel for petitioners as well as R-1 and contesting third respondent.
In the light of the limited relief granted by the Tribunal, we are of the view that it is unnecessary for us to refer all the factual matrix as referred to
by the petitioners as well as the respondents particularly the contesting third respondent.
It is seen from paragraph No. 7 of the impugned order that the Tribunal, after satisfying itself that the applicant therein viz., third respondent
herein, was not given opportunity to put forth his claim, set aside the proceedings dated 26.3.1996 and directed the Chief Engineer, Highways and
Rural Works, Chepauk, Chennai-5, the 2nd respondent herein, to afford opportunity to the applicant therein (3rd respondent herein) as well as
others including the petitioners herein and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The said order further shows that while passing the said
order, the authority should give opportunity to all the persons and also consider the orders issued in O.A. No. 904 of 1991 to the extent to which
it has bearing upon the seniority of the applicant therein as against those respondents (petitioners herein) in the list of seniority of Assistants. In the
light of the said conclusion and of the fact that all the parties will have opportunity to put forth their claim, we are of the view that there is no valid
ground for interference.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Connected W.P.M.Ps. are closed. It is made clear that we have not expressed our views
regarding the claim of either parties and it is for them to highlight the same before the appropriate authority as directed by the Tribunal.