RATHENDRA BISHNU NANHEN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants thought that a seniority list had been prepared in the year 2007, which the appellants challenged. In the counter affidavit it was said that the list was not a seniority list. The writ petition was dismissed and this appeal has been filed against the dismissal order. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that a seniority list has been prepared in the year 2009. If that list is a tentative list, the appellants will have the right to file objection, and if the list has been finalised, the appellants would have the right to challenge the same. However, the 2009 seniority list was not the subject matter of the writ petition and therefore cannot be subject matter of this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Nath Prasad Vrs. Saran Paljeet Singh Tulsi reported in (2008) 3 SCC 80. That decision has no

(2.) application in this case because in that case promotion had taken place before 1985 that before the effective date of the 85th Constitutional amendment.

(3.) In this case promotion has taken place much later. This appeal is mis-conceived and is accordingly dismissed.