ANIRUDH MISHRA Vs. STATE OF BIAHR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE dispute in this writ petition relates to seniority. The petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned gradation lists in which he has been placed below the respondents. The gradation lists referred to in the petition are dated 2.10.80 contained in An -nexure -8, 15.5.81 contained in Annexure -10, 20.1.84 contained in Annexure -12 and 31.3.87 contained in Annexure -14. During the pendency of the case a revised gradation list was published on 19.8.96 Aide Annexure -24. The petitioner seeks quashing of the said gradation list by amendment.

(2.) AS the earlier gradation lists have been revised and stand merged in the gradation list dated 19.8.96, it is not necessary to refer to the inter se seniority of the parties in the earlier lists. It may be mentioned at the outset that out of 40 private respondents originally impleaded in the case, 27 appear to have retired from service during the intervening period on reaching the age of superannuation and therefore, the dispute relating as to seniority is now confined to between petitioner on the one side and respondent nos. 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 30, 31, 32, 34, 36, 38, 42 and 44 on the other. 15 more persons were sought to be added as respondents vide I.A. no. 3942/97 after the revised gradation list dated 19.8.96 was published, but the same was not even referred to at the time of hearing.

(3.) SHRI Kamal Nayan Choubey submitted that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Deputy Superintendent, Government Ayurvedic College, Patna in the scale of Rs. 415 -475 but by reason of merger of administrative and teaching posts and provision for a common scale of pay the petitioner has been placed below the persons who were in the lower scale of Rs. 296 -430 on the basis of date of appointment. He submitted that where appointment is made from different sources, on merger of posts the date of entry in service should not be treated as the criterion for determining seniority specially when the posts carried different scales of pay. He pointed out that while in the earlier gradation lists, the petitioner was placed at SI. No. 41, in the revised gradation list dated 19.8.96 his position slided down to SI. No. 51 on account of wrong fixation of seniority. In support of the contention, he placed reliance on Om Prakash Sharma and ors. vs. Union of India and ors. AIR 1985 Supreme Court 1276, and Bihar State Text Book Publishing Corporation vs. Basudeo Singh and ors., 1996 (2) PLJR 11.