(1.) THIS L.P.A is directed against the order dated 10.9.1992 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of SWP No. 420 of 1987. Though the facts in detail have been given in the impugned judgment, however, for analysing and appreciating the questions of law and facts - while disposing of this petition, it is necessary to give some facts in brief.
(2.) SHORN of details: petitioner -appellant came to be appointed as Library Assistant in the pay scale of Rs. 65 -185 by Respondent No.l in terms of order dated 6.4.1971. Petitioner was transferred and was directed to work against one of the additional posts of Junior Assistants in his own pay and grade. Meanwhile, on creation of one post of Junior Assistant, petitioner was adjusted in his own pay and grade against the newly created post on 14.10.1981 vide annexure ËœC to the petition. Petitioner, in between, made a representation that pay and grade of the post of Junior Assistant be released in his favour, as he was working against that post .Thereafter, on 27.3.1972 some of ad -hoc appointments were made against the clear vacancies of Junior Assistants subject to proper selection to be made under the University Regulations. Thus, the petitioner also figured at Serial NO. 1 and was thus appointed on ad -hoc basis as Junior Assistant in the grade of 75 -5 -115 -RB -7 -150plus DA and D.P admissible under rules. However, on 23.12.1976 sanction was accorded to the confirmation of the petitioner against the post of Junior Assistant from the date of -the order viz 23.12.1976, while the respondents came to be confirmed as against the posts of Junior Assistant on 19.4.1974 [SIC] and 21.6.1975. The petitioner again made representations that his appointment be deemed from 22.7.1971 or from 14.10.1971, from which dates he had been working against the post of Junior Assistant. His representations came to be rejected and the result thereof was conveyed to him 13.9.1975. The matter did not rest here. Petitioner was promoted as Senior Assistant on 3.9.1979 after the respondents were promoted as Senior Assistants. Respondents, thereafter, were promoted to the post of Head Assistants on 1.5.1987. It is against this order, petitioner has filed the writ petition and has sought the relief that the respondents are junior to him because they have been appointed long after the petitioner was initially appointed. Petitioner thus has craved by way of writ of Mandamus that the respondents be directed to restore the seniority of the petitioner as requested by him from time to time with effect from 22.7.1971 with all the consequential benefits accruing to him and has sought the relief by way of issuance of writ of certiorari seeking quashment of the order dated 1.5.1987 by virtue of which respondents, who are allegedly much junior to the petitioner, are promoted to the post of Head Assistants.
(3.) WRIT court dismissed the writ petition both on the grounds that the writ petitioner, who was confirmed on 10.5.1976, cannot claim seniority over the head of respondents, who have been confirmed in 1975 in this cadre. Basing his decision on Rule 24 of the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956, the learned Single Judge has held that the seniority of a person who is subject to these rules has reference to the service, class, category or grade with reference to which the question has arisen. Such seniority shall be determined by the date of his first appointment to such service, class, category or grade, as the case may be. The first appointment in this Rule has been explained to be the first substantive appointment. Secondly, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition on the ground of laches. According to him, the petitioner has not challenged his confirmation order or his ad -hoc appointment in his own pay and grade at any relevant point of time, but has come to the court seeking the relief after a period of sixteen years which, in the view of the learned Single Judge, could not be given, hence the appeal.