Banerjee, J. - (1.) Judicial precedents are available in large numbers in regard to the irksome issue of inter-se seniority between the direct recruits and promotees. One direct recruit judicial officer, said to be aggrieved by the issuance of a Notification dated 13th December, 1990 in the matter of revision and refixation of the dates of confirmation of Districts/Additional District and Sessions Judges in Haryana Superior Judicial Service has brought this matter before this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution.
(2.) On an analysis of the factual details, it can undoubtedly be said that the matter itself has a chequered career. The appellant joined the service on 2nd May, 1983 as a direct recruit Additional District and Sessions Judge in Judicial Service on probation for a period of 2 years. The contextual facts depict that shortly after joining the post and during the probationary period, the petitioner's services were terminated and in accordance with the existing Rules, the recommendation for such termination was duly sent to the State Government but the State Government in its turn however requested for a further probationary period of one year. Subsequently however, upon the expiry of the extended period the petitioner's services were terminated and it is against the termination order, that the petitioner moved this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution. By an order dated 26-5-1988 this Court however did set aside the order of termination and a direction was issued for reinstatement of the appellant with continuity of service together with all arrears of salary, allowances and other benefits and in terms therewith petitioner's service was confirmed with effect from 2nd May, 1986. Subsequent to the placement of the petitioner as above (i.e. to say from 2-5-1986), the petitioner however, moved an interlocutory application in the Civil Appeal No. 811 of 1988 and this Court on 11th September, 1990 passed an order to the effect that the petitioner's entitlement for confirmation from 2nd May, 1985 cannot be doubted and the High Court was not right in confirming the petitioner with effect from 2nd May, 1986 and it is on this perspective a further direction was issued by this Court for confirmation of the petitioner with effect from 2nd May, 1985 within two months and the same was duly complied with recording the confirmation as directed.
(3.) The petitioner however moved once again this Court, under Article 32 which is presently under consideration inter alia for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari for quashing the order or notification dated 13-12-1990 regarding the placement of the petitioner in the seniority list. Incidentally, it is convenient to note at this juncture that the petitioner has been placed at Sl. No. 27 in the seniority list. It is also convenient to note that whereas the petitioner claims placement immediately after Sl. No. 18 i.e. Shri Krishan Kant in the pleadings before this Court but there is slight shift in the stand during the course of hearing since the petitioner (appearing in person) contended that as a matter of fact, the placement should have been immediately after Shri M. K. Bansal at Sl. No. 19 and before Shri A. S. Garg who is placed at Sl. No. 20.;