- (1.) Special leave granted.
(2.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant and respondent No. 2. Respondent no. 1 has not chosen to appear in spite of notice.
(3.) The dispute in this matter is as to promotion to the post of Senior Gestetner Operator in the registry of the Delhi High court. It is a fact that the appellant was appointed as a peon on 1 9/04/1967 while respondent No. 2, Nirmal, came to be so appointed on 12/08/1968. The post of Senior Gastetner Operator is available to be filled up by promotion from the post of Junior gestetner Operator which both these parties came to hold. When the question of filling up the vacancy of the Senior Gestetner Operator came to be considered, the High court on the basis of performance promoted the second respondent in preference to the appellant. That gave rise to the dispute.;