Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. - (1.) Learned counsel for the parties are agreed that Civil Writ Petition Nos. 16351 of 1985 and 10510 of 1991 can be disposed of by a common order.
(2.) The petitioner had approached this Court through Civil Writ Petition No. 16351 of 1985 with a prayer that respondents 4 to 7 therein were junior to him and had been wrongly promoted, this Writ Petition was admitted. During the pendency of this petition, the petitioner was suspended vide order, dated July 12, 1991. Consequently, he filed the second petition. While, it was pending respondents 3 and 4 passed an order dismissing him to amend the petition. Accordingly, he filed an Amended Petition and impugned the order of dismissal as well.
(3.) No written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The averments made in the Writ Petition have not been controverted by any of the respondents. However, at the hearing of the case, Mr. Rup Chand, learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4 has submitted that on account of petitioner's dismissal from service, the dispute regarding the seniority has become academic and the case should be dismissed as having become infructuous. He further points out that under rule 33 of the Staff Service Rules of the Haryana State Cooperative Housing Federation Ltd. (Service Rules, for short), the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy of appeal. He further submits that the order of dismissal had been passed by the Board of Directors and consequently, the appeal shall he with the Registrar.;