- (1.) D. K. Seth, J. The dispute with regard to seniority between Dr. Rajeev Ranjan Singh, the petitioner, in Writ Petition No. 18331 of 1995 and Writ Petition No. 38259 of 1995 and respondent No. 4 in Writ Peti tion No. 20007 of 1995, and Dr. Purshottam Prasad Pathak the petitioner in Writ Peti tion No. 20007 of 1995 and respondents No. '5' and '4' respectively in writ Petition No. 18331 of 1995 and Writ Petition No. 38259 of 1995, is the subject-matter of all these writ petitions, claiming one or the other relief. The facts are common. The relief claimed in the said three writ petitions is dependent on the determination of seniority. For the sake of convenience the writ petitions are taken up together since common questions of facts and law are in volved in all these three writ petitions.
(2.) DR. Purshottam Prasad Pathak, was appointed as Instructor in Sampurnanad Sanskrit University, Varanasi (hereinafter referred to as the 'university') on 10th July 1970. DR. Rajeev Ranjan Singh was ap pointed as Instructor in the said University on 31st August 1977. Both of them filed Writ Petition Nos. 5320 of 1982 and Writ Petition No. 6278 of 1982 respectively, for treating them as lecturer. On 10th October 1984 Section 31-Awas incorporated in the U. P. State Universities Act by U. P. Act No. 9 of 1985, introducing a Scheme, commonly known as 'personal Promotion Schemes. On 21st February, 1985 Statute 11. 12-B was added to the Statute of the said University. On 9th March 1987 DR. Pathak was ap pointed a Head of the Department. In the year 1990 DR. Singh was- appointed as Lec turer. On 25th April 1992 DR. Singh was allowed benefit of Personal Promotion Scheme and was promoted to the post of Reader. By an order dated 22nd May 1992 both the said Writ Petition Nos. 5320 of 1982 and 6278 of 1982 were allowed. By reason of the said order the post of Instruc tor were treated as Lecturer. The judgment in the said two Writ Petitions along with several others stood, affirmed by reason of judgment dated 6th May, 1994 delivered by the Apex Court. Pursuant to the said judg ment treating all the Instructors as lecturer the University granted benefit of promotion to the post of Readers from the respective dates when the same became date pursuant to the rule applicable for the purposes by the University by an order dated 26th February, 1995. DR. Singh made a repre sentation before the Chancellor against the promotion of DR. Pathak. On 26th March, 1995 the University issued an order promot ing DR. Pathak and preparing a seniority list. The same was challenged by DR. Singh in Writ Petition No. 18331 of 1995. In terms of the order, dated llth July, 1995 passed in the said case, upon request being made to the Chancellor for deciding the repre sentation made by DR. Singh on 6-3-1995, the Chancellor decided the said repre sentation, holding that the promotion of DR. Pathak was valid. But, however, the question of seniority was directed to be decided by the Seniority Committee. The said order of the Chancellor was also chal lenged by means of amendment made in the Writ Petition No. 18331 of 1995. By an order dated 15th July 1995 the University allowed DR. Singh to be treated as senior to DR. Pathak until the question of seniority is decided by the Seniority Committee. This order dated 16th July 1995 is challenged by DR. Pathak in Writ Petition No. 20007 of 1995. On 21-9-1995 the Seniority Commit tee decided DR. Pathak as senior to DR. Singh. The decision of the Seniority Com mittee was questioned by DR. Singh by means of a representation filed by him before the Chancellor. By an order dated 27-11-1995 the Chancellor directed the Ex ecutive Council to decide the petitioner's representation and not to give effect to the order of Seniority Committee till the said representation/appeal against the order of Seniority Committee is decided. The said order dated 27-11-1995 was challenged by DR. Pathak in Writ Petition No. 35179 of 1995. By an order dated 6-12-1995 the Ex ecutive Council, was directed to decide the matter and submit a report while DR. Pathak was restrained from functioning. By an order dated 16-12-1995 the Executive Council decided the appeal against DR. Singh holding DR. Pathak as senior to the petitioner. This order dated 16-12-1995 has been challenged in Writ Petition No. 38259 of 1995 filed by DR. Singh on 22-12- 1995. By an order dated 2-1-1996 Writ Petition No. 38259 of 1995 was directed to be listed alongwith Writ Petition No. 35179 of 1995 and Writ Petition No. 20007/95. On 3-1- 1996 DR. Pathak got his Writ Petition No. 35179 of 1995 dismissed as not pressed. By an order dated 23- 1-1996 passed in Writ Petition No. 38259 of 1995 status-quo-ante to the impugned order was directed to be maintained. This is now all these cases arise. Counter-affidavit and rejoinder-af fidavits have been exchanged between the parties in two of the Writ Petitions while Sri R. K. Singh, learned counsel for the respon dents contends that he does not propose to file any counter-affidavit in Writ Petition No. 20007 of 1995 since the same has be come in fructuous on the ground that the order impugned has lost its force by reason of determination of seniority subsequent to the said order inasmuch as by the said order the present seniority was directed to con tinue till the seniority is determined. By means of an application for amendment Sri L. P. Naitham, appearing on behalf of Dr. Pathak, sought to incorporate amendment, seeking to challenge the ap pointment of Dr. Singh, for the post of Reader by an order dated 25-4-1992 under Personal Promotion Scheme. But the same was rejected on being opposed by Sri R. N. Singh on the ground of delay and latches and on account of point raised by him as to the maintainability of application after ces sation of the impact of the order impugned in the writ petition, as pointed out by him earlier, which submission, we find to be of substance.
(3.) SO far as Writ Petition No. 20007 of 1995 is concerned it appears that in the said writ petition following prayers were made: " (a) issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 16-7-1995 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) passed by the University. (b) Issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to disturb the working of the petitioner as Head of Department Bhartiya Vidya Sanskrit Evam Pramanpatriya Vibhag Sankey. " By an order dated 16-7-1995 it was directed that unless the seniority between Dr. Pathak and Dr. Singh is decided accord ing to Statute 18. 09 by the Seniority Com mittee Dr. Singh shall remain Head of the Department and Member of the Council. The scope of writ petition was therefore, confined only to the extent of purview of the said order, as specified therein. The scope and ambit of the writ petition, confined only to the question of decision by the Seniority Committee. The said order was valid till the decision by the Seniority Committee is taken. Admittedly the Seniority Committee decided the question by an order dated 22-9-1993 and the appeal there out was decided by order dated 16-12-1995, which was again challenged in Writ Petition No. 38259 of 1995. By reason of the interim order granted in the said Writ Petition the position as contained in the said impugned order dated 16-7-1995 continued to remain operative. Therefore by fiction the said order dated 16-7-1995 cannot be said to have ceased. Therefore we are unable to accept the con tention of Sri R. N. Singh that the said writ petition has become in fructuous. However, nothing remains to be decided in the said writ petitions since the order impugned is in effect was issued by an interim measure until the seniority is decided finally. There fore the question is dependent on the decision in the matter of seniority. We, therefore, propose to proceed with Writ Petition No. 38259 of 1995 on the outcome whereof the fate of parties are dependent and any decision therein would render the Writ Petition No. 20007 of 1995 in fructuous.;