Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) WRIT petition having been restored to its original number vide order of date, as requested by learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is taken up for hearing at this stage. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) IT appears that this writ petition has come up against the order of the U.P. Public Services Tribunal, I, Jawahar Bhawan, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") dated 2.3.1987 passed in Claim Petition No. 195(1) of 1983 filed by respondent No. 2 Sri Hausila Singh, claiming seniority from the date of initial appointment. The Tribunal allowed his claim petition, directing his seniority over Sri Vinod Chand Sharma and Sri Chhotey Lal Katiyar who were appointed on 18.3.1980 and 23.9.1980 respectively. The writ petition challenging the aforesaid judgment of Tribunal was dismissed by this Court on 23.9.1997. The petitioner State filed a review application but the same was also dismissed on 1.2.2000. Thereafter the petitioner State took up the matter in Special Leave Petition No. 4980 -81 of 2000. The Apex Court vide judgment and order dated 11.9.2000 allowed the appeal, set aside order passed by this Court, and remanded the matter with the following directions: - - In our view, the High Court ought to have allowed the review application and reopened the writ petition and gone into the question in detail as to whether on the basis of the letters of the Service Commission the first respondent was entitled to seniority against the aforesaid two persons. It is not clear what the High Court meant by stating that the regularisation must be according to rules. We, therefore, set aside the orders passed by the High Court in the review application as well as in the writ petition and restore the writ petition. The High Court will now proceed to refer to the points raised in the review application alongwith the documents filed as annexures to the said application and deal with the matter in accordance with law. The appeals are allowed accordingly. The High Court will dispose of the matters within two months from the date of receipt of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Thereafter again the matter came up before this Court. It appears that Hon'ble R.B. Misra, J., in absence of any one on behalf of the petitioner, dismissed the writ petition as infructuous. It is this order which has been recalled on the application filed by the petitioner today.
(3.) LEARNED Standing Counsel appearing for petitioner, submitted that respondent No. 2 was a promotee and was given an ad -hoc promotion on 7.7.1976, while other two i.e. Sri Vinod Chand Sharma and Sri Chhotey Lal Katiyar were appointed as direct recruits in 1980 and, therefore, they were liable to be treated senior to respondent No. 2 and learned Tribunal has completely erred in law in not appreciating this fact.;