- (1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution relates to two service matters; regarding seniority and promotion.
(2.) Originally, there were two petitioners and 19 respondents; however, on account of the deaths of Sri Ram Bhargava, petitioner No. 2, and Abdul Khair, respondent No. 10, and the . superannuations of Mritunjai Lal, Pooran Chand Pande, Ram Sunder Singh and Ghulam Haider, respondents Nos. 6, 11, 12 and 15, during the pendency of the petition, and the controversies being purely personal relating to service mattersthe maxim or the principles of the maxim actio personalis moritur cum persona has become applicableand further since the service interests of the deceased Sri Ram Bhargava only and not of Madan Mohan Saran, petitioner No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) clashed with those of A. B. Sinha and S. K. Bose, respondents Nos. 18 and 19, the dispute has now narrowed down between the petitioner and Chandra Bhushan Lal Srivastava, Jivan Chand Mitra, Kripa Narain Srivastava, Prag Raj Dube, Mahesh Chandra Srivastava, Shushil Kumar Srivastava, Vishwa Nath Prasad, Brij Narain Mehra, Shyam Krishan Lal and Nabi Ahmad, respondents Nos, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 16 and 17 respectively; and, in the circumstances, therefore, it would be necessary to narrate only such facts as are relevant to the remaining controversy.
(3.) The prayer in the petition is for the issue of three separate writs, namely, (a) A writ of certiorari quashing (i) three orders dated September 6, 1967, October 19, 1968 and March 1, 1969, passed by the Chief Justice, respondent No. 1 containing general principles for fixation of seniority of the staff holding posts in various grades in the Establishment of the High Court, and' (ii) Gradation List of 1951, Draft Gradation List of 1967 and Final Gradation List of 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the 1951, 1967 and 1969 Lists), in so far as they show respondents Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 16 and 17 as senior to the petitioner, (b) A writ of quo warranto requiring the respondents Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9 to show by what authority they are holding the posts of Assistant Superintendent or Superintendent in the said Establishment, and (e) A writ of mandamus commanding respondent No. 1 and the Registrar, respondent No. 2, to re-fix the seniority of the petitioner and respondents Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 16 and 17 on the basis of their respective lengths of service in a substantive capacity in the grade of Upper Division Assistants (hereinafter referred to as U. D. As.);