- (1.) PALOK Basn, and M. C. Agarwal, JJ. R. N. Tiwari, the petitioner, has filed this writ petition with the following prayers: - " (i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the seniority list dt. 5-8-93 (Annexure-13) to the extent the name of the petitioner is incorrectly shown at sl. No. 137. (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to determine the petitioner's seniority in the cadre of Senior Godown Keeper/quality Inspector Grade I/technical Assistant Grade-I and place him at serial No. 40 after reckoning 6 years service rendered by him in the Food Dept. , Govt. of India. (iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to determine the seniority of the petitioner in the cadre of Assistant Manager (Technical) ignoring the reversion period i. e. 10-10-73 to 18-5-76. " When the writ petition was filed on 4-1-1994, a counter affidavit was called. It has been filed to which a rejoinder affidavit has also been filed. During the pendency of the writ petition, an amendment application has also been moved to which the judgment will advert a little later.
(2.) SRI K. N. Tripathi, Senior Advocate, assisted by SRI H. P. Dubey has been heard at substantial length on behalf of the petitioner. SRI S. N. SRIvastava, learned Standing Counsel for the Food Corporation of India, has also been heard at length in reply. As prayed, the writ petition is being finally disposed of at the admission stage after hearing the learned counsel for the parities and examining the relevant records. Before referring to the controversial questions raised, it may be mentioned that in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Food Corporation of India and another v. H. N. Bharti, J. T. 1992 (2) S. C. 445 connected with several other writ petitions, it has been held by the apex Court that "the circular has, therefore, taken care of both the categories, namely, direct recruits as well as 'food transferees'. It is, therefore, essential that the question of seniority of both the cadres be determined on the basis of the principles laid down in the said circular hereinabove. There was no need to strike down the entire seniority list but it would suffice if the FCI is directed to review and determine the seniority of the 'food transferees' as well as direct recruits who were granted ad hoc promotions, in the light of the said circular as Explained by us. . . . . . . . " It may be mentioned here that the aforesaid judgment came to be passed by the apex Court on several petitioner challenging the seniority list which was in vogue till the year 1977 and with the aforesaid directions, those lists were dealt with.
(3.) IT may be mentioned again that, as noted in the prayer, the petitioner challenged the final seniority list which has been published only in the 1973. IT may be mentioned that while the petitioner's counsel said that even this so-called final list is tentative, S. N. Srivastava said that for all practical purposes, this list is adhered to as final list. The only question for determination is whether the petitioner's employment in the Govt. of India (Food Dept.) shall have to be added to the total number of years for the purpose of determination of seniority in accordance with the regulations framed by the Food Corpn. of India. In this connection, it is important to record that the regulations have been in vogue only since the yrs. 1971 (30-4-1971) and, admittedly, the petitioner and several like the petitioner were transferred to the Food Corpn. of India from the department concerned of the Govt. of India. Options were called as a result of which the petitioner chose to be in the Corpn. (Food Corporation of India ).;