B K DOSHI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was appointed as a Clerk in the year 1950 and later on was promoted as Accountant on 21-8-1964. Thereafter. he was made Head Clerk on 15-12-1965. He was then reverted from the post of Head Clerk by order dated 25-11-1966 and was again made Accountant on 20-11-1967. PETITIONER's basic grievance is against his reversion order dated 25-11-1966 coupled with the grievance relating to the promotion of his juniors during the period between 25-11-1966 and 20-11-1967. The petitioner has challenged the seniority list of Assistant Superintendents as on 1-1-1979, which is available at page 21 (Annexure B) with the Special Civil Application, as also the seniority list Annexure "A" and he claims seniority over the respondent Nos. 3 to 13. His grievance is that his date of appointment as Head Clerk has been treated to be 20-11-1967 and 13-8-1971 as the date of confirmation. His claim is that he should be given seniority on the basis of his date of appointment as Accountant, i.e., 21-8-1964 or as Head Clerk from 15-12-1965 and the dates on which his juniors were promoted. The seniority lists? which are under challenge, have been issued as on 1-1-1979, but the grievance relates to the order dated 25-1 1-1966. The petitioner failed to challenge his reversion order dated 25-11-1966. In the reply, which has been filed on behalf of the respondent, the only ground, which has been taken, is that of delay and laches. It is unfortunate that this petition is pending in this Court since 1982 and in the meantime, the petitioner had also retired from the service on 29-2-1984 whereas this petition was filed on 16-8-1982.

(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Hathi and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. The petitioner's case is that he had made representation against the *, challenging the Seniority List. reversion and that he has been subjected, to injustice in the matter of appointment as Head Clerk and consequently for the higher post. The petitioner may have made such representation, but the fact remains that the reversion order dated 25-11-1966 was not challenged before the Court at appropriate time and that is the basic order. In absence of challenge to the basic order, the petitioner's seniority has to be counted on the basis of his date of appointment as Head Clerk, i.e., 20-11-1967. I find that the petitioner has failed to challenge the basic order against which he was aggrieved, i.e., his reversion in 1966. Seniority is nothing but a consequence of a past event relating to the appointment. Therefore, having failed to challenge the basic order, against which the petitioner was aggrieved, i.e., the order dated 25-11-1966, the petitioner cannot maintain the challenge to the consequence, i.e., the seniority. It is the settled law that without challenging the basic order, the challenge to the consequential orders cannot be sustained and at this stage, when the petitioner had already retired ten years ago and had filed the petition in the year 1982 against the reversion of 1966, the challenge to the reversion order of 25-11-1966 cannot be entertained. Since the challenge to the basic order cannot be entertained, the question of considering the challenge to the consequential orders simply does not arise. In this view of the matter, I do not find any substance or merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Rule is hereby discharged. No order as to costs.