- (1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking following reliefs:- i) issue a writ order or direction including a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 31.10.1996 (Annexure No.13 to the writ petition) and order dated 30.5.1996 (Annexure No.12 to the writ petition) passed by respondent no.1. ii) issue a writ, order or direction including a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.1 not to make any recovery from the salary of the petitioners.
(2.) The averments as stated leading to the filing of the present petition, in brief, are as under:- The petitioner no.1 was appointed on ad-hoc basis against a temporary post of Stenographer on 2.4.1979 and continued as such till his regularisation, the petitioner nos.2,3 and 4 were also appointed on the post of Stenographer (Hindi) on ad-hoc basis against clear vacancy on 21.4.1980 and continued as such till their regularisation. It is also alleged that the respondent no.2, Rajendra Kumar Gupta was appointed as an approved candidate for the post of officiating Paid Apprentice of District Judge's Court on 6.11.1973. He worked in various capacities since then, and on 20.4.1979 he was posted as Stenographer to the Civil Judge, Budaun but, his substantive appointment remained as Copyist which is a lower post on temporary basis. The petitioner no.1 was confirmed on the post of Stenographer on 11.2.1987 with immediate effect on the temporary post being made permanent whereas the petitioner nos.2,3 and 4 were confirmed on 6.1.1990 with immediate effect. The services of the respondent no.2 were confirmed with retrospective effect on 27.7.1993. A dispute arose in between the petitioners and the respondent no.2 with regard to their inter se seniority. The competent authority took cognizance of the inter se seniority dispute called for a report and the First Additional District Judge, Budaun submitted a report on 23.10.1989 recommending to place the petitioner no.1 above the respondent no.2 vide his report dated 23.10.1989. The respondent no.2 filed his objections against the report dated 23.10.1989 and on the said objections another report was called by the District Judge, Budaun. The Third Additional District and Sessions Judge, Budaun submitted another report on 19.5.1991 agreeing with the earlier report dated 23.10.1989, the District Judge, Budaun relying upon the aforesaid reports dated 23.10.1989 and 19.5.1991 determined the seniority dispute holding that the petitioner no.1 to be senior vide his order dated 3.6.1991 (Annexure No.6 to the writ petition). The said order dated 3.6.1991 was challenged by the respondent no.2 by filing a writ petition before this Court being Writ A No.14497 of 1992 (Rajendra Kumar Gupta Vs. District Judge and others) which was subsequently dismissed as having become infructuous. The respondent no.2 also raised seniority dispute between the petitioner nos. 2,3 and 4 on one hand and the respondent no.2 on the other hand and on his objections the District Judge, Budaun constituted a Team of two Additional District Judges to enquire and submit a report with regard to the inter se seniority of the petitioner nos. 2, 3 and 4 and the respondent no.2. The said Team submitted a report on 8.9.1993 recommending therein to place the petitioners no. 2,3 and 4 above the respondent no.2 in the seniority list, the District Judge, Budaun agreeing with the report dated 8.9.1993 accepted the same and passed an order on 9.9.1993 and the petitioners no. 2,3 and 4 were held to be senior to the respondent no.2.
(3.) In terms of the said decision dated 9.9.1993, the seniority dispute came to an end and the salary of the petitioners were fixed accordingly. The respondent no.2 aggrieved against the said decision again agitated the matter for re-fixing the inter se seniority and the District Judge, Budaun vide his order dated 30.5.1996 held the respondent no.2 to be senior to the petitioners on the ground that the regularisation of the respondent no.2 was with retrospective effect and as such the respondent no.2 was senior to the petitioners. The said order dated 30.5.1996 has been filed as Annexure No.12 to the writ petition. The petitioners moved an application before the District Judge, Budaun for reviewing the order dated 30.5.1996, however, their representation was rejected vide order dated 31.10.1996 (Annexure No.13 to the writ petition). The present petition challenges the order dated 30.5.1996 as well as the order dated 31.10.1996.;