D.P.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) BY means of this petition, the Petitioner has challenged the order dated 12 -8 -1991 passed in Claim Petition No. 353 (I)/ II/1985 by the U.P. Public Service Tribunal No. II. In paragraph 8 of the judgment, the following observations have been made by the Tribunal: The opposite parties, thus, have themselves admitted the contention of the Petitioner that he was to be treated as senior most on the basis of the date of his appointment and, therefore, should have been appointed as Head Clerk. The claim petition, thus, was liable to be allowed.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner, Sri N.S. Chaudhary, challenges this observation in the judgment that only thing admitted was that the Petitioner was the Librarian and the Tribunal has wrongly recorded the admission that the claimant be treated senior most on the basis of date of his appointment and, therefore, should have been appointed as Head Clerk. He has not claimed for the post of Head Clerk. The Tribunal, on the basis of above observation, passed the final order. At present, I am not inclined to interfere with the order as the appropriate course for the Petitioner is to approach the Tribunal and seek clarification in the matter on merits.
(3.) IT is a settled view that if something is argued before an authority and the authority had not considered the same, or something argued but the authority has considered it differently, then the party should approach the authority for clarification. The Supreme Court, in the case of Daman Singh v. State of Punjab : AIR 1985 SC 973, has observed as under: If indeed any ground which was argued was not considered it should be open to the party aggrieved to draw the attention of the Court making the order to it by filing a proper application for review or clarification. The time of the superior Courts is not to be wasted in enquiring into the question whether a certain ground to which no reference is found in the judgment of the subordinate court was argued before the Court or not?;