J.S. Verma, J. - (1.) The main point for decision in this writ petition and the connected matters is the constitutional validity of Rule 26 of the Delhi Administration Subordinate Service Rules, 1967 (for short "Rules") as amended on May 19, 1989. A brief background of this challenge is necessary to indicate the narrow compass in which the controversy now survives.
(2.) The Executive and Ministerial Class III services were merged by notification dated December 4, 1980 and the seniority in the integrated cadre was to be reckoned on the basis of their placement in the cadre. A writ petition was filed in the Delhi High Court to challenge this act of merger of the Executive and Ministerial branches as well as Rule 26 of the said Rules which provided for determination of the seniority on merger of the two branches. The High Court by its judgment dated May 13, 1982 rejected the challenge to the merger of the Executive and Ministerial branches but it struck down Rule 26 as invalid. The decision of the Delhi High Court was upheld by this Court by dismissal of the special leave petition on August 2, 1985. Thereafter Rule 26 was amended on July 12, 1985. The amended Rule 26 was challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal by its judgment dated July 23, 1987 reaffirmed validity of the merger of the two branches but it quashed the amended Rule 26; and consequently the seniority list prepared on that basis was also quashed. The Tribunals order was challenged in this Court by a special leave petition which was dismissed on February 12, 1988 but it was held that the amendment to Rule 26 made on July 12, 1985 is prospectively valid. An application for clarification of Courts order was then made which was disposed of by order dated August 30, 1988. In that order it clearly stated as under: "Rule 26 which came into force from July, 1985 recognised the principle of seniority to be computed on the basis of total length of service. Therefore, when this Court made the order on 12-2-1988, it found that since the practice of total length of service being the determinative feature for seniority has been accepted, even without the rule, there was no justification to strike down the Rule and the Rule was, therefore, said to be made applicable prospectively from July, 1985. There is no quarrel with that position by any of the parties." Thus by the aforesaid order dated August 30, 1988 it was made clear that seniority computed on the basis of total length of service is an accepted principle and Rule 26 as amended from July 12, 1985 recognised that principle because of which there was no justification to strike down the rule as it was valid. It was, therefore, settled by that decision of this Court that a provision in the Rule providing for computation on the basis of total length of service is valid in the present case. The controversy to this extent, therefore, is to be treated as settled by that decision of this Court.
(3.) The present litigation is a sequel of a further amendment made in Rule 26 on May 19, 1989, even though Rule 26 as amended on July 12, 1985 was upheld in the earlier round of litigation as indicated above. Writ Petition No. 525 of 1990 has been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution in this Court challenging the validity of Rule 26 as amended on May 19, 1989. Challenge is also made in this writ petition to the validity to merger of the Executive and Ministerial branches. However, a fresh challenge to the merger of the two branches is no longer permissible on account of the earlier decisions of the point. The only question for decision in the writ petition is, therefore, the validity of Rule 26 as amended on May 19, 1989 in the above background. The connected matters also involve the same challenge and the same point for decision and they arise out of the unsuccessful challenge made to this effect before the Central Administrative Tribunal.;