S.S.Sodhi, C.J. - (1.) PENDENCY of writ petition in a similar matter, does it bar the final decision of 3nothtr writ petition on the same point in issue ? This is what comes to the fore In this special Appeal.
(2.) THE question passed arises la the context of the writ petition filed by the appellant seeking to challenge his reversion from the post of Sub- Registrar. Interference in writ proceedings was declined by the learned Single Judge on the ground of there being an efficacious alternative remedy before the Tribunal under the U. P. Public Services Tribunal Act 1976. Counsel for the appelant referred, in this behalf, to Civil Misc. Writ petition 700 (SB) of 1994 pending before the Lucknow Bench, where on July 4, 1994, an interim order was passed, which reads as under : "Admit Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks thereafter. List thereafter. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order itself shows that the petitioner was confirmed on the post of Registration Clerk on 4-6-1978 and on the post of Chief Registration Clerk on 28th March 1991. further pointed oat that annexure no. 1 is tentative seniority list of Chief Registration Clerk Registration Clerk the petitioner has been shown at serial no. '44'. He pointed out that the petitioner is now reverted but his juniors mentioned at serial no. '45', '46' and '47' are still working and they have not been reverted. If the above mentioned facts are correct then we direct that the reversion order dated 16-6-1994 contained in Annexure No. '7' shall remain stayed." The argument being that as the said writ petition had been admited, the present writ petition too should have been admitted to be heard will it. In support counsel cited Sushil Chandra Pandey v. Factory Manager, 1982 UP LB1 EG 211, where the Supreme Court held : "Heard learned counsel for the parties At the High Court has already admitted the petition of the .petitioner Bheem, being Civil Misc. writ petition No. 2286 of 1979, to hearing, on a parity of reasoning the High Court should also have admitted the petition of the appellant instead of rejecting it in limine. In fact, the case of the appellant stands on equal. If not on better footing. We therefore set aside the order of the High Court rejecting the petition of the appellant in limine and direct the High Court to admit the petition of the appellant to hearing and hear the same along with Civil Misc. Writ petition: No. 2286 of 1979 at an early date." A plain reading of this judgment clearly does not warrant the interpretation that there can or should not be any final hearing of the writ petition merely on the ground that a similar matter has already been admitted for hearing. Indeed, to follow the course suggested by the counsel for the appellant, namely, to merely admit a writ petition because a similar one already stands admitted and sot to decide it, would mean, as a wag would put it "let the crop grow before it is harvested". Weighed down, as we are, with such a heavy burden of pending cases, Co allow matters, where similar issues are likely to arise, to remain pending would clearly hi subversive to the interest of justice; rather the proper and appropriate course is for such matters to be heard and finally decided by a speaking and reasoned order, so that it may facilitate the disposal of other similar matters too, whether pending or likely to come to Court thereafter. In other words, there is no bar to the writ petition being decided merely on the ground that a similar writ petition has already been admitted for hearing.
(3.) WE consequently hereby uphold the order of the learned Single Judge and dismiss this Special Appeal. In dismissing the Special Appeal we direct that a copy of this order be placed on the file of the said writ petition pending before the Lucknow Bench and we further direct the Registry to list the said writ petition for hearing before the appropriate Bench at an early date.;