DINESH MAHESHWARI,NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-II - (1.) THESE two intra-court appeals against similar nature orders dated 09.03.2011 as passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in respective writ petitions bearing numbers 2686/2008 and 2684/2008, have been considered together. By the impugned orders, the learned Single Judge has considered the petitions filed by the petitioners-appellants, working as Class IV employee with the respondent Municipal Corporation, on the purported grievance against denial of promotion and denial of selection grades. The learned Single Judge proceeded to observe that so far the question of promotion was concerned, the petitioners were treated as not possessing the requisition of qualification of Matriculation and as such, avenue for promotion was not available to them. The learned Single Alongwith one connected matter Judge further noticed the fact that the selection grades had already been granted to the petitioners and observed that the claim of the petitioners with regard to the selection grades stood satisfied. In this view of the matter, the learned Single Judge proceeded to dismiss the respective writ petitions.
(2.) IN the present intra-court appeals, the endeavour of the learned counsel for the petitioners-appellants had been to argue that the petitioners were indeed possessing the qualification of Prathama and the same was required to be treated as equivalent to Matriculation; and, therefore, the petitioners-appellants are entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Lower Division Clerk. However, when it has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation that the case as sought to be set up in these intra-court appeals was not specifically pleaded before the learned Single Judge, the learned counsel for the petitioners-appellants, after examining the record, frankly submitted that the objection regarding specific and necessary pleadings in regard to the submissions sought to be made in these intra-court appeals cannot be seriously contested by him. The learned counsel, however, submitted that the basic grievance of the petitioners-appellants had been in regard to the denial of promotion and non-consideration of equivalence of the qualification possessed by them; and otherwise, so far the claim for grant of selection grades was concerned, that had already been satisfied, even prior to the filing of the respective writ petitions. The learned counsel for the petitioners-appellants submitted that may be for want of adequate and proper communication, the petitioners-appellants had not been able to project their grievance in an intelligible manner and that has resulted in all the mix-up. In this view of the matter, the learned counsel made a prayer that each of the petitioners-appellants may be permitted to withdraw from the respective writ petition with liberty to take recourse to the appropriate remedies in accordance with law. The learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation, in all fairness, has not objected to the prayer so made by the learned counsel for the appellants. In the totality of the circumstances and particularly after having gone through the pleadings as taken in the original petitions and the submissions as sought to be made, we are of the view that it shall be in the interest of justice if the petitioners- appellants are granted the permission and liberty as prayed for. Accordingly, the petitioners-appellants are permitted to withdraw; and the respective writ petitions stand dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed. In view of the above, these appeals are, obviously, rendered redundant and are dismissed as such.;