D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) The petitioner having been selected for training was suspended on account of his involvement in a criminal case. However, by reason of an order of stay passed by this Court tn an earlier writ petition, the petitioner was permitted to continue with the training. During the course of training, the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent without leave for a long period. Therefore, he could not complete the training along with his batchmates. However, the period of training was extended as a good gesture by the respondents. After the training is over, in the overall assessment of the concerned officer, the petitioner was found unfit for being offered employment for which he was relieved. The petitioner had moved a Writ Petition No. 3900 of 1993, which was disposed of on 14th July, 1995, challenging the said denial of employment. In the said judgment, it was found that the batchmates of the petitioner were called for Interview but the petitioner was denied the opportunity of interview. In the order dated 14th July, 1995, it was observed that the petitioner was not found fit and suitable for giving regular employment by the Corporation but the petitioner was not called for the Interview. On this ground, the Court was pleased to further observe that although the terms and conditions did not guarantee employment to the petitioner but after successful completion, it was obligatory upon the respondent to consider him for appointment on a suitable post and a suitable scale. In the letter dated 20th December. 1993 when 13 Diploma Holder Trainees, the batchmates of the petitioner were called on for the Interview, it was noted that the petitioner will be completing his training in March, 1994 and will be Interviewed separately. Despite such note, the petitioner was never called on for interview and as such his case was never considered. On this ground, the respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioner for his appointment on the post of Scientific Assistant "B" in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of the said order and to appoint him on the post in question if he was found fit for appointment and that his case would be considered in the same manner in which the case of his batchmates was considered. Pursuant to the said order dated 14th July. 1995, the petitioner was interviewed and had been ultimately given appointment.
(2.) Mr. Ashok Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been deprived of the seniority which he would have got along with his batchmates, had he been allowed to complete the training along with his batchmates. Therefore, the respondents should reconsider the question of fixation of seniority of the petitioner alongwlth his batchmates. He relies on the expression used in the order dated 14th July, 1995 that the case of the petitioner should be considered in the same manner as his batchmates have been considered and contends that his seniority should have been fixed along with his batchmates and at best he may be given the bottom seniority of his batchmates. On this ground, he prays that the writ petition be allowed and the relief prayed for in the writ petition, be made available to the petitioner.
(3.) After hearing Mr. Ashok Khare, it appears that whatever, relief the petitioner can expect is to be found out within the four corners of order 14th July. 1995. The expression 'the petitioner will be considered in the same manner as his batchmates have been considered' appearing in the said Judgment relates to the consideration for appointment or in other words, it means that the petitioner's case should be considered on Identical standard on which the case of his batchmates were considered. The consideration for' appointment is a state prior to appointment. The Court has not laid down anything with regard to what will happen if the petitioner is appointed after such consideration. Unless there is specific provision provided in the order itself, the petitioner cannot claim any benefit beyond the scope and ambit of the said order. The question that the petitioner's appointment should relate back to the date on which his batchmates were appointed even on notional basis ought to have been subject-matter in the said decision. It was open to the petitioner to make such a prayer. Even then, unless there was specific direction in the order itself, no better benefit could be asked for by reason of his appointment pursuant to the said order.;