K.P. SHARMA Vs. L.K. MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the order dated 5.2.1997 passed by the State Administrative Tribunal. Gwalior Bench. in O.A. No. 752195.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated. the facts are that respondent No. 1 Dr. K.L. Mishra who was at the relevant time Lecturer in the Government Ayurvedic College and Hospital, Gwalior, filed an application being O.A. No. 752/95 on 20.7.1995 before the State Administrative Tribunal. Bench Gwalior (for short the 'Tribunal') challenging the Gradation List of 1981 and onwards in which he was placed below the petitioner herein, i.e. Dr. K.P. Sharma and praying that the respondents No.2 and 3 herein be directed to place the applicant/respondent No. 1 above respondents No. 3 to 6 before the Tribunal in the Gradation lists published by making necessary corrections therein and to give all consequential and ancillary benefits to the applicant. On notice being issued. the State/respondents No.2 and 3 herein (who were respondents No.1 and 2 before the Tribunal) filed return and it was stated therein that due to clerical mistake name of applicant has been included in the gradation list published in the year 1981 below the respondents No. 3 to 6 and the same has been repeated in the gradation list published in the subsequent years, and on the basis of the representations of the applicant the said mistake has been noticed and due scrutiny is being carried out in the matter of the applicant and his grievance is expected to be redressed within a short. period. The petitioner (who was respondent No.5 before the Tribunal) filed return wherein he stated that it is he who is senior and not applicant Dr. K.L. Mishra. A preliminary objection was also raised in the return (Para led)) which reads:

(3.) SHRI KK Lahoti, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. submits that the Tribunal did not at all consider his return especially the question of limitation raised by the petitioner which ought to have been considered by the Tribunal. Learned counsel contended that since the petitioner had disputed the question of seniority and the plea of limitation. it required adjudication without which an order affecting the petitioner could not he passed on the basis of the so -called admission of the State and its officer, respondent No.2