PUSHPA PANDITA Vs. J&K SRTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under clause 12 of Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dtd. 3/6/2011 passed by the learned Single Judge ["the Writ Court"] in SWP No. 2294/2002 titled "Pushpa Pandita and Ors vs. J&K SRTC and Ors, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants seeking quashment of promotion of respondent No.4 to the post of Sr. Typist and grant of the same in favour of the appellants, has been dismissed by the Writ Court.

(2.) Before adverting to the grounds of challenge urged by the appellants in support of their appeal, it is necessary to set out brief resume of the factual antecedents leading to filing of this appeal. At the relevant point of time, the appellants and respondent No.4 were serving as Junior Assistants in J&K SRTC ["the Corporation"]. The General Manager (Admn.) of the Corporation vide order No. JKSRTC/MD/RHQJ/1293-97 dtd. 3/5/1997 promoted respondent No.4 as Sr. Assistant in the then pay scale of Rs.1200.002140 (pre-revised). The appellants, claiming to be senior to respondent No.4, were left out. The appellants claim that they figured at S.No.257 and 258 respectively in the seniority list of Jr. Assistants issued in the year 1991, whereas respondent No.4 was shown at S.No.371 in the said list.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved by the promotion of their junior as Sr. Assistant, the appellants filed SWP No. 2294/2002 seeking, inter alia, a Writ of Certiorari for quashing the order of promotion of respondent No.4 as also a Writ of Mandamus for directing the Corporation to promote the appellants also as Sr. Assistants w.e.f the date respondent No.4 had been so promoted. The appellants also challenged the authority of respondent No.3 to issue an order of promotion in favour of respondent No.4. The order of promotion of respondent No.4 which was issued on 3/5/1997 was called in question in the writ petition filed in the year 2002 and, therefore, to explain the delay, the appellants in their writ petition pleaded that since the Corporation had kept the promotion of respondent No.4 as guarded secret and, therefore, it took them a lot of time to have access to the impugned order and, therefore, the delay.