Gokal Chand Mital, J. - (1.) In this writ petition the seniority list, P-8, prepared by the Northern Railway, Ferozepore Division, is challenged on the ground that the same has been prepared in violation of the quota and rotation rules inasmuch as 25 per cent of the posts were to go to the direct recruits and 75 per cent to the promotees and in this very ratio and rotation their inter se seniority had to be fixed, that is, the first post available after April 1,1954, was to go to the direct recruits, second, third and fourth posts were to go to the promotees (Rankers) and again the fifth post to the direct recruits and the next three to the promotees, and so on. The petitioner lays his claim for fixation of seniority for the fifth post as he is a direct recruit on the post of Traffic Apprentice He has stated in paras 10 to 14 of the petition that five Traffic Apprentices (direct recruits) of Northern Railway, posted in the Delhi Division challenged the seniority list on the aforesaid grounds before the Delhi High Court and a learned Single Judge of that Court decided on merits in favour of the writ petitioners and held the seniority list to be ad as it did not follow the rotational system correctly, but declined the relief on the ground of delay in filing the writ petition That judgment of the learned Single Judge was upheld by the Letters Patent Bench in L. P. A. No. 220 of 1972, on merits but was reversed on the point of delay and consequently, the writ petition was allowed and the necessary relief was granted to the writ petitioners. It is also stated that special leave application against the Division Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court was rejected by the Supreme Court and as such the judgment of the Division Bench has been upheld by the Supreme Court. A copy of that judgment has been annexed with this writ petition as Annexure P-7.
(2.) The Railway Administration, in reply, has admitted the decisions of the Delhi High Court and the refusal of the special leave application by the Supreme Court but has taken a stand that the seniority of the Traffic Apprentices has been correctly fixed from the dates of their postings in terms of para 302 of Chapter III of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (Second Edition), the judgment referred to by the petitioner is not a judgment in rem and that it relates to the employees of the Delhi Division and the Rankers (promotees) of other Divisions were not parties before the Delhi High Court, the decision of the Delhi High Court will not apply to the Ferozepore Division and also on the ground that the writ petition has been filed after undue delay and should be dismissed on account of laches.
(3.) The matter came up before a learned Single Judge of this Court who, by order dated Sept. 29, 1978, desired that the case be heard by a larger Bench as the correctness of the decision of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court was likely to be challenged. That is how the case is before us.;