KRISHNADEO PANDIT Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for respondent No. 6.

(2.) APPELLANT has preferred this letters patent appeal against order dated 25.11.1998 whereby the writ petition has been dismissed on merits. The writ petitioner (appellant herein) had claimed seniority over respondent No. 6 in the post of Extra Clerk in the registry office in Bhojpur (Arrah) and on that basis he claimed that heshould be appointed on the post of temporary clerk witheffect from 2nd June, 1989 and not from 04.11.1995. Thewrit Court noticed the facts of a writ petition preferred bythe appellant earlier in the year 1993 in which the onlyrelief sought for was a direction to the District Registrar,Bhojpur to send a report on the question of senioritybetween the writ petitioner and respondent no. 6 as askedfor by the Inspector General of Registration. Afterdisposal of that writ petition on 10.01.1995 the petitionerfiled a contempt petition in the same year but that wasdismissed with an observation that I.G. registration hadsufficient power to take action if his direction for sendinga report was not being obeyed by his subordinate. Thewrit Court further found that the writ petitioner had beenapproaching this Court with frivolous prayers and therewas no material to doubt the stand taken by the State andits authorities in the counter affidavit that as per senioritylist dated 16.02.1976 appended as Annexure-A to thecounter affidavit, respondent No. 6 was senior to the writpetitioner. Hence, the writ petition was dismissed.

(3.) THE only other issue relevant for decidinginter se seniority is date or dates on which the writpetitioner and respondent No.6 were engaged on the postof extra clerk. On this issue the consistent stand of the respondent State is that the respondent No. 6 occupied thepost on 29.12.1972 and the writ petitioner on 30.12.1972.No doubt in Annexure-7, the District Registrar, Bhojpurreported that from the relevant register it appears that bothhave signed there presence in the office on 02.01.1973.But beyond this there is no other material to enable thisCourt to decide such a disputed question of fact.