- (1.) On a wrong decision and/or error of judgement of the authority the situation became so complex as on date, the authority could not solve the same and were compelled to move this Court by way of the instant appeal. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as well as the private respondents being the respondent Nos.3 to 17 were all Tally Clerks under the appellant. Respondent Nos.3, 4, 5, 6, 16 and one Sibraj Gobind (not a party to the above appeal) were appointed Tally Clerks on the basis of the selection held by different selection committees on February 17, 1989. From the record it appears that they had been working since 1984 and were allowed to participate in a regular selection process in 1989. A merit list was prepared, however, formal appointment could not be given to them. Subsequently, another selection process was held on July 26, 1991 when all of them were considered along with the writ petitioners. As a result, the writ petitioners as well as private respondents were formally appointed Tally Clerks in 1991 through a selection process dated July 26, 1991. They were working without any grievance. Subsequently, all private respondents were appointed Assistant Shed Master being the next promotional post and four of them got further promotion to the post of Shed Master during pendency of the above litigation.
(2.) Two writ petitioners complained of the discrimination made by the authority while giving promotion to the next promotional post of Assistant Shed Master, as they were not considered for the said post. The authority gave an explanation to the effect that the private respondents were given promotion before the writ petitioners on the basis of their seniority in the post of Tally Clerks taking into account their selection in 1989, whereas, all of them were formally appointed as such through the selection process of 1991 and not 1989. The writ petitioners approached the learned Single Judge and obviously became successful in upsetting the promotional process. The learned Single Judge elaborately discussed the backdrop and held that once all of them became Tally Clerks by virtue of single selection process of 1991 their seniority should be determined as per merit considering selection process of 1991 and 1989 selection process would be of no consequence. The learned Judge asked the authority to recall the promotion, if any given in the meantime, and revise the seniority list and grant promotion accordingly. The learned Single Judge, however, asked the authority not to disturb the private respondents in respect of the promotion they already got and were enjoying. The authority initially accepted the said order. In fact, they applied before the learned Single Judge for extension of time to comply with the same as we find from the application for extension so made by the authority before the learned Single Judge. However, while giving effect to the order of the learned Single Judge the authority realized their mistake and situation became so complex it would be difficult for them to give effect to the order in its entirety. The difficulty so faced by the authority is discussed hereinafter.
(3.) There were altogether 17 Tally Clerks involved in the process, although all of them were not parties to the proceedings. Since the posts of Assistant Shed Master were sufficient enough to accommodate all 17 Tally Clerks, the authority accommodated them in the post of Assistant Shed Master. However, the problem lies with the next promotion which was however not the subject matter of said petition, being the post of Shed Master. There were four posts of Shed Master. During pendency of the writ petition, four private respondents were given promotion to the post of Shed Master from the post of Assistant Shed Master. To give effect to the order, they were all called back for re-adjustment. Now, after revision of the seniority list in accordance with the direction of His Lordship, it appears that to accommodate those four persons thirteen supernumerary posts would have to be created to accommodate all of them as those four persons were at the bottom of the revised list. It is true that all the affected parties were not before the learned Single Judge or before us. However, in case only those four are given protection by keeping them as Shed Master it would give rise to a fresh litigation by those persons who were sitting on the fence. In any event, we cannot permit the authority to discriminate them only to accommodate those four persons.;