- (1.) The petitioners herein were appointed as Assistant Geophysicists in the establishment of Oil and Natural Gas Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission"). The said post is of E. O level. There is yet another post which is above E. O level post and it is known as E. I level post. The promotion to the post of E. I level post is done partially on the basis of promotion and partially by direct recruitment. Under the Commission recruitment and Promotion Regulations, 1980 if an employee working in E. O level post fulfils certain criteria and has put in two years of service, he is eligible for being considered for promotion to the post of E. I level. Subsequently, by office memorandum for E. 1 level posts, 50% of them were reserved to be filled in by direct recruitment and other 50% posts were to be filled by promotion. The allegation of the petitioners is that the respondents instead of promoting the officer working in E. O to the post of E. I, filled up the posts of E. 1 on large scale through direct recruitment and the petitioners were not promoted to the post of E. I although they fulfilled the criteria required for promotion. Subsequently it appears that the petitioners represented to the respondents and on 16-6-1993 the following decision was taken by the Commission: "(1) All E. O level officers existing before 25-4-1980 possessing the q. 1 qualification should be treated as E. I level officers from 1980 and promoted to E. 3 after 9 years plus i. e. 1-1-1990; (2) all E. O level officers recruited in 1980 should be treated as E. I from that year and promoted to E. 3 after 9 years plus i. e. 1-1-1990; (3) all E. O level officers recruited in 1981 should be treated as E. I from 1981 and promoted to E. 3 after 9 years plus i. e. 1-1-1991; (4) all E. O level officers recruited as such in 1992 should be treated as E. I from that year and promoted to E. 3 after 9 years plus i. e. 1-1- 1992. "
(2.) By this decision the petitioners were required to be promoted with effect from 24-4-1980 to the post of E. I level. Prior to the aforesaid decision of the Commission, the petitioners were appointed to the E. 1 level post in the year 1982. Subsequently they were promoted to E. 2 and E. 3 and at present they are working as E. 4 level officers. Subsequently certain employees aggrieved by the aforesaid decision filed a petition in the Gujarat High Court. The High Court set aside the decision dated 16-6-1993 whereunder the petitioners got the benefit of promotion with effect from 24-4-1980. It is stated that SLP filed against the said decision was dismissed. Thereafter, the present writ petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution. In the writ petition the petitioners have claimed several reliefs. The relevant ones for purposes of this case are: "(A) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the entire record of the case and quashing, annulling and setting aside the seniority lists of Geophysicists (Wells) as from 25-4- 1980 and all other seniority lists of E. 2, E. 3 and E. 4 levels; (b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the entire record of the Departmental Promotion Committee and quash, annul and set aside the promotion/appointment of respondents 3 to 5 and their other juniors; (c) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding and directing the 2nd respondent to give within a period of 3 months from the date of the order of this Hon'ble Court full effect to the provisions contained in paras 4 and 9 of the Second Schedule of the oil and Natural Gas Commission (Recruitment and Promotion) regulations as elaborated by Office Order No. 2/22/80/rp-1 dated 25-4- 1980 and give all the seniority-cum-fitness/merit promotions to the posts of E. 2, E. 3 and E. 4 from dates prior to Respondents 3 to 5 with all financial, consequential and incidental benefits flowing from the seniority-cum-fitness/merit promotion to the said posts; (d) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of prohibition forbearing and prohibiting the 2nd respondent to treat Respondents 3 to 5 and the persons who belong to that class as seniors to the petitioners herein and the persons who belong to their class for any purpose whatsoever including for the purpose of seniority in posts at E. I, E. 2, E. 3 and E. 4 levels or promotions to these posts and posts of E. 5 and higher level. "
(3.) At the time when this petition was filed in this Court the learned counsel for the petitioners gave a statement which runs as follows: "Shri P. P. Rao, the learned Senior Counsel and Shri Subodh markandeya, the learned counsel states that prayers (a) and (b) in the writ petitions are framed in very wide terms but the petitioners) do not seek quashing of the seniority and the promotions as far as the other employees are concerned and will only seek relief insofar as the petitioners are concerned. Issue notice. ";