BAL KRISHAN SHARMA Vs. H.P.UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is no merit in this writ petition in which the seniority list published by the university is being challenged. At the out set it must be pointed out that the writ petition suffers from mis -joinder of causes of action and mass leading. Admittedly, all the petitioners are not on the same pedestal. According to the learned Counsel, petitioners 1, 2 and 6 to 8 stand on a different footing from petitioners 3 to 5. The only common grievance is that they are all aggrieved by the seniority list. Apart from that, the facts are different with regard to each group of petitioners and they should not have joined in one writ petition as the question will have to be decided on the facts pertaining to each group.

(2.) Secondly, the seniority list was published in 1981. The writ petition was presented in this Court only in 1988. It is stated by the learned Counsel that the petitioners came to know of the seniority list only some time prior to the filing of the writ petition and there was no delay thereafter in approaching the Court. We are unable to accept this version of the petitioners to be correct, The first reason for not accepting the version is that by an office order dated 15 -7 -1977 the services of the petitioners were regularised by the Vice Chancellor on the recommendations of the Recruitment and Promotion Committee with effect from 2 -7 -1997. The petitioner were admittedly appointed on 1 -11 -1976 on ad hoc basis by the Vice -Chancellor. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the regularisation from a date later than 1 -11 -1976 from which date they have been functioning as such clerks they should have agitated that question. It cannot be said that the petitioners were not aware of the order of regularisation of their own services. Even if the petitioners contention that they were not aware of the regularisation of other persons is accepted, the petitioners were certainly aware of regularisation of their services with effect from 2 -7 -1977. If there was any error in such regularisation and if the contention of the petitioners is that they should have been regularised from an earlier date they should have agitated that question soon thereafter. The did not choose to challenge the said regularisation order at any time except in the present writ petition.

(3.) Secondly it is common knowledge that among the employees of the same cadre in the same establishment or organisation they would certainly be knowing about the regularisation of each one of them and consequently the petitioners would have come to know that the respondents were regularised with effect from 1 -7 -1977, a day prior to the date from which the petitioners were regularised. Hence the contention that they came to know about the regularisation of the respondents only just before the filing of the writ petition cannot be accepted.