(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THERE are two types of Clerks in the permanent Establishment of the Government. One of them are Temporary Clerks and the other Permanent Clerks. The Permanent Clerks carry a better scale of pay than the Temporary Clerks. Normally Temporary Clerks are appointed through a selection process to the vacant posts of Temporary Clerks. When a vacancy arises in the post of Permanent Clerks, the same is filled in by Temporary Clerks on the basis of selection. One Birendra Kumar and the petitioner were Temporary Clerks. Their names were sent to the Selection Committee in order to ascertain as to whether they are suitable for being appointed to the posts of Permanent Clerks. The Selection Committee found Birendra Kumar more suitable then the petitioner and accordingly posted the name of Birendra Kumar at SI. No. 1 and the name of the petitioner at Sl. No. 2. Surprisingly, however, the petitioner was made Permanent Clerk. Birendra Kumar then approached this Court and the Division Bench of this Court by its judgment dated 20th August, 1990 reversed the choice exercised in favour of the petitioner for giving him the post of Permanent Clerk denying the same to Birendra Kumar, although Birendra Kumar was found better suited than the petitioner. While disposing of the matter it was recorded by the Division Bench that there is a permanent post available in which the petitioner should be considered for appointment. The petitioner was given appointment on the post of Permanent Clerk on 37th January, 1998.
(3.) HAVING regard to such contention, on 9th February, 2005 I directed the respondents to file a supplementary counter affidavit stating what was the status of the petitioner as on the date of the judgment dated 20th August, 1990 delivered by the Division Bench and after that judgment was delivered when and how the status of the petitioner was altered and how many posts of Permanent Clerk were lying vacant as on 20th August, 1990 and how the same had been filled in.