T N SAXENA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
LAWS(SC)-1990-8-80
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ALLAHABAD)
Decided on August 22,1990

T.N.SAXENA Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

H BIAKCHHUNGA VS. STATE OF MIZORAM [LAWS(GAU)-2005-6-37] [REFERRED TO]
ARUN KUMAR SAXENA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2008-3-131] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH CH PATNAIK NALINIKANTA MOHAPATRA VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(SC)-1998-4-75] [REFERRED TO]
T SURENDRANATH BABU VS. VICE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION [LAWS(APH)-1998-9-99] [REFERRED TO]
P C VERMAN RETD LT COL DR VS. MOHINDER SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-1997-9-40] [REFERRED TO]
DEBABRATA GHOSH & ORS. VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-1992-3-43] [REFERRED TO]
S.K. AGRAWAL AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS [LAWS(RAJ)-1992-11-65] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)These writ petitions are under Art. 32 of the Constitution. The dispute which forms the subject-matter relates to one of inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotees to the post of Senior Marketing Inspector.
(2.)The same dispute was before this Court in C.A. No. 3148 of 1979. The petitioners in present W.P. Nos. 9149-51 of 1983 were the appellants. By judgment dated May 7, 1982 (reported in AIR 1982 SC 1244: 1982 All LJ 1080) this Court while disposing of the appeal gave the following direction (Para 17):
"The Government shall now issue a fresh seniority list in the light of the observations made and principles enunciated by this Court and the High Court so as to avoid any reversion of promotees, who had been promoted within their quota as Senior Marketing Inspectors or above,"

A fresh seniority list has been duly published on August 4, 1983 pursuant to the said direction and is Annexure III to the said writ petition. This seniority list has been assailed in the main matter by contending that the direction of the Court has not been implemented. The said writ petitions raised similar contentions but in W.P. No. 9074 of 1983 the facts are somewhat different and we shall advert to them in due course.

(3.)In W.P. Nos. 9149-51 of 1983, five sets of respondents have been impleaded - the first set being public officers and authorities and the other four sets being four sets of promotees. The petitioners in those cases are direct recruits. At the hearing it has been conceded that the cause of action does not survive as against the third, fourth and fifth sets and petitioners have made their submissions confined to the second set only.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.