D.P.GUPTA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner was initially appointed as a Upper Division Clerk in the University of Jodhpur with effect from August 27, 1962. The petitioner holds the post graduate degree in Arts and the Bachelor of laws degree from the University of Rajasthan. He also passed 'Sahitya Ratna' examination of the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag.
(2.) RESPONDENT No. 3 T.P. Singh is a graduate in Arts and he was appointed as a U.D.C. in the Univeesity of Jodhpur with effect from October 6, 1962 In the final seniority list of Upper Division Clerks, as on January 1, 1964, published by the University on January 11, 1967, petitioner was placed at serial No. 14 and the respondent No. 3 was at No. 23. Similarly, in a subsequent senority list as on October 1, 1972 issued by the University on September 26,1972 the petitioner was placed at serial No. 8 while the respondent No. 3 was placed at serial No. 15. Thus, the case of the petitioner is that he was senior to the respondent No. 3 as he was appointed on the post of Upper Division Clerk in the University earlier to the respondent No. 3. The University promoted respondent No. 3 to the post of Senior Assistant with effect from June 14, 1968 ignoring the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner thereupon filed a writ petition in this Court being S.B. Civil Writ petition No 477/1968. The writ petition was allowed by a learned Judge of this Court on March 10, 1970 and the appointment of respondent No. 3 and three other persons promoted as Senior Assistants along with him was set aside. The University thereafter by its order dated March 30, 1970 reverted the non petitioner No. 3 as Upper Division Cierk with effect from the date of order of this Court namely, March 10, 1970. On October 15, 1970, the Syndicate of the University passed a resolution to the effect that the promotions in the Secrecy Branch of the University upto the level of Superintendent may be made from amonst the staff working in that branch on the normal basis of seniority -cum -merit. On March 7, 1973 the Syndicate of the University passed yet another resolution stating that promotions to all posts upto the level of the Section Officer may be made internally, partly by seniority and partly by merit. It as also stated that the exact distribution of posts and the manner of promotion would be determined by the Syndicate later on. Subsequently by another resolution dated April 28, 1973 the Syndicate constituted a committee to frame rules regarding the distribution and manner of promotion of nonteaching staff upto the level of Section Officer. The University, under the garb of Syndicate resolution dated October 15, 1970, promt ted respondent No. 3 by its order dated April 7, 1973 to the still higher post of Section Officer.
(3.) THE petitioner, having felt aggrieved against the promotion of the respondent No. 3 to the post of Section Officer, filed the present writ petition in this Court on May 2, 1974. The case of the respondent University is that as the respondent No. 3 was working in the secrecy branch, he was promoted on the post of Section Officer from the post of Upper Division Clerk, as the intervening post of Senior Assistant in the secrecy branch was also vacant. However, realising the weakness of its stand, the University reverted the respondent No. 3 from the post of Section Officer by its order dated September 10, 1975 firstly, to the post of Senior Assistant and then to the post of Upper Division Clerk by another order issued on the same date. Thus, after the filing the of writ petition the grievance of the petitioner, so far as it related to the illegal or unlawful promotion of respondent No. 3 to the post of Section Officer has already been redressed. The prayer for a writ of mandamus made by the petitioner has thus become infructuous as it is no longer necessary to direct the reversion of the respondent No. 3 to the post of Upper Division Clerk because he has already been reverted to the post of Upper Division Clerk by the order of the University dated September 20, 1975. The further prayer made by the petitioner that the promotions to the post of Section Officer may be made according to seniority -cum -merit has also become infructuous, in view of the subsequent events which have taken place during the pendency of the writ petition. It is undisputed that the petitioner was appointed as Section Officer on April 21, 1977 and thereafter the respondent No. 3 was appointed as Section Officer on April 26, 1977. Thus, in the cadre of Section Officers, the petitioner is senior to the respondent No. 3, and the seniority of the petitioner vis a vis respondent No. 3 which existed in the cadre of Upper Division Clerk, is still maintained on the higher post of Section Officer as well.;