Shishir Kumar, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the applicant and Sri K. R. Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the opposite party.
(2.) IT appears that there was some dispute regarding the seniority. Applicant filed a writ petition before this Court as Writ petition No. 11134 of 2006. This Court passed an interim order on 23.02.2006, the same is being reproduced hereunder: We have heard Sri T. P. Singh learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri A. K. Srivastava for the Petitioner and Sri Shiv Nath Singh, learned Add. Chief Standing Counsel appearing for Respondents No. 1and 2 the granted one month to file counter affidavit. The Petitioner shall have three weeks thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit. He shall also take steps to serve Respondents 3 to 37 by registered post within 10 days. Office shall and notices returnable at an early date. List on the date fixed by office in the notice. Until further orders of this Court effect and operation of the impugned seniority list dated 30.08.2005 and the order dated 29.08.2005 passed by the Respondents, Annexures 1 and 9 respectively to the writ petition, shall remain stayed. It appears that certain matters relating the seniority taken attention and one Rajendra Singh and others filed a special Leave petition No. 1775 -1776 of 2004. The aforesaid Civil appeal was disposed of by passing the following orders: It has been pointed out by learned Counsel for both the parties that after filing of Special Leave Petitions, there is a change of seniority list of the Petitioner vis -a -vis Respondents. In the seniority list dated 30.08.2005 Respondent No. 1 Sahngoo Ram Arya has been placed at seniority No. 49 whereas the seniority numbers of Firtu Ram, Anand Prakash and Randendra singh at 60, 60 and 75. Therefore, now there is a change scenario and the whole case will have to be reconsidered by the High Court because of the change of the seniority list. The seniority list of 1996 is now, no more in existence and a new list of 30.08.2005 has come into place. In this view of the matter, we set aside the impugned judgment dated 28.01.2003 and remit the matters back to the High Court to consider the arguments of the Appellant as well as Respondents and decide the matter afresh in th light of the changed situation. Meanwhile, status -quo with regard to the Respondents as well as Appellants shall be maintained till the decision by the High Court. There shall be no order as to costs.
(3.) NOW it appears that one Sahngoo Ram Arya was working as an Executive Engineer, was promoted on the post of Superintending Engineer on the basis of departmental promotional Committee. This order was passed on 20.12.2008. From the order, it appears that order has been passed in interpreting the order of the Supreme Court that this promotion is being made in compliance with the order of the Apex Court.;