V.K. SHRIVASTAVA Vs. PRAHLAD SINGH TOMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Sanjay Ram Tamrakar, learned Advocate for the petitioners in WP No.5283/1999.

(2.) Respondent No. 1-Prahalad Singh Tomar approached the Tribunal assailing the seniority list Annexure A-2 and seeking a declaration that he is senior to the respondents No. 2 to 11 in the Original Application, who are petitioners No. 1 and 2 and private respondents No. 3 to 10 in the present writ petitions. He also sought a declaration that he may be promoted to the post of Executive Engineer in the D.P.C. which is going to be held shortly. Even though service of notice was affected on all the private respondents before the Tribunal but none of them chose to file the return and the matter was decided after hearing the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1-Prahalad Singh Tomar and the learned Government Advocate.

(3.) The facts of the cases as noticed from the impugned order are that the respondent No. 1/Original Applicant before the Tribunal was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer on 19.1.1990 from the post of Sub-Engineer and became member of the Rural Engineering Services (Gazetted). He was given charge of the office of Executive Engineer, Raisen Division, Raisen vide order dtd. 22.10.1997. This order was passed on the basis of the original seniority as contained in Annexure A-4 showing the seniority position as on 1.4.1994 and Annexure A-5 showing the seniority position as on 1.4.1995. In both of which, he was shown senior to the private respondents before the Tribunal. However, vide order dtd. 1.4.1997 a provisional seniority list of Assistant Engineers as per Annexure A-7 was issued vide letter dtd. 16.6.1997 (Annexure A-6). In that seniority list, for the first time, the respondent No. 1 herein/Original Applicant before the Tribunal was shown junior to the private respondents No. 2 to 11 before the Tribunal. The Respondent No. 1 herein/Original Applicant before the Tribunal submitted a representation against the said seniority list before the official respondent, on 14.7.1997, which however, was rejected by order dtd. 29.10.1997 vide Annexure A-9. Hence he approached the Tribunal by filing the Original Application.