SHARAD SAKHARAM GUNDALWAR Vs. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Shukul, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Shri Manohar, learned Senior Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2, and Shri Kothari, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.3.

(2.) At the time of filing this petition, the petitioners were serving as Senior Clerks under the direct control and supervision of the District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur. It is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that during pendency of this petition, all the petitioners have retired from service.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioners that they were required to discharge their services under the administrative control of the District Judge and their service conditions were governed and regulated by the provisions of the Civil Manual. In the matter of promotions and confirmations, the District Judge is required to consider certain provisions as laid down in the Civil Manual. As per the provisions of the Civil Manual, all Clerks, who pass Lower Standard Departmental Examination should be confirmed immediately in the existing vacancies. Such confirmation should not be deferred till passing of such examination by their seniors. It is also provided in the Civil Manual that if a Clerk, who is Junior in service, has passed the Lower Standard Departmental Examination before a Clerk, who is senior in service, the Clerk junior in service should be confirmed, if there is a permanent vacancy, in preference to a Clerk senior in service, who has not passed the examination. In the Civil Manual, two examinations are prescribed, i.e. Lower Standard Departmental Examination and Higher Standard Departmental Examination. The petitioners were promoted as Senior Clerks from the posts of Junior Clerk in the year 1985 on the ground that they had passed Higher Standard Departmental Examination and the seniors to the petitioners in the cadre of Junior Clerks were bypassed as they had not passed Higher Standard Departmental Examination. According to the petitioners, promotion orders were issued to them. However, subsequently by order dated 21/3/1995, seniority of the petitioners was re-fixed and dates of their promotions were changed. Though the petitioners were appointed earlier, their seniority was considered from later point of time in the cadre of Senior Clerk in view of the decision given by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 1305/1989. The promotions of the petitioners were, therefore, regularised in the cadre of Senior Clerk from the dates different than the original dates on which they were promoted. It is the aforesaid re-fixation of the seniority in the cadre of Senior Clerk, which is impugned at the instance of the petitioners in this petition.