Pradeep Kant, J. - (1.) WRIT Petition No. 737 (SB) of 2001 has been filed by the petitioner Dr. Raksha Goswami, challenging the orders passed by the State Public Services Tribunal, by means of which the claim of the respondent Dr. Rama Shanker Yadav of being senior to the private respondents, who were five in number, including the present petitioners of WRIT Petition Nos. 16 (SB) of 2005 and 78 (SB) of 2005, namely, Dr. Raksha Goswami and Dr. Ravi Dutt Tripathi has been allowed. An interim order of stay has been passed in this case on 23.5.2001 staying the operation of the judgment and order dated 9.5.2001, passed by the Public Services Tribunal. The said interim order is still continuing.
(2.) IT appears that during pendency of this writ petition, the post of Director, State Ayurvedic and Unani Medical Colleges has fallen vacant, on which post respondent Dr. Rama Shanker Yadav, who is holding the substantive post of Principal and Superintendent, State Ayurvedic College and Hospital, Lucknow, has been allowed to work on officiating basis in addition to his own post vide order dated 31.12.2004. This order dated 31.12.2004 has been challenged by Dr. Raksha Goswami in Writ Petition No. 16 (SB) of 2005 and the same order has been challenged by Dr. Ravi Dutt Tripathi in Writ Petition No. 78 (SB) of 2005. The challenge to the aforesaid order by the petitioners, which in turn would mean, Dr. Raksha Goswami and Dr. Ravi Dutt Tripathi in the instant judgment, is mainly based on the ground that they are senior to Dr. Rama Shanker Yadav, respondent in all three writ petitions and, therefore, in the presence of senior person, the additional charge or officiating charge of the post of Director could not have been handed over to the respondent. Another argument has been raised that though the Tribunal has given a finding for treating the respondent senior to the petitioners, but operation of the order of the Tribunal having been stayed by this Court, it would not be open for the State Government either to allow a junior person including Dr. Rama Shanker Yadav to take charge of the post of Director or to give effect to the order passed by the Tribunal in the matter of giving officiating charge on the higher post and to treat the respondent senior for the said purpose in terms of the orders passed by the Tribunal.
(3.) WHEN these petitions viz. Writ Petition No. 16 (SB) of 2005 and Writ Petition No. 78 (SB) of 2005 were taken up for orders, counsel for Dr. Rama Shanker Yadav, Sri R. C. Saxena prayed that the seniority dispute is already engaging attention of this Court in Writ Petition No. 737 (SB) of 2001 and, therefore, the same be also clubbed with the aforesaid two writ petitions and be decided together. Sri R. C. Saxena, learned counsel for the respondent Dr. Rama Shanker Yadav, suggested and Sri S. K. Kalia, senior advocate and Sri Sanjay Kumar, advocate, and the learned counsel for the State agreed that the writ petition, in which seniority of the parties is under consideration, may be decided along with these two writ petitions. We also feel that the seniority dispute, if is decided first, it would conclude the cases of the other two petitions. We are, therefore, disposing of these writ petitions by a common order.;